Talk:Ben Best/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have not been sure how to interpret this labeling of my talk page. My first impression was that it is either intended to be a Scarlet Letter or a prelude to a deletion or both. I realize that there is a policy against Wikipedians writing autobiographies, but looking at the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset I noticed Rule Number 3: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules which I decided is highly relevant in this case. Especially when one of the most important rules in my ruleset is "If you want something done right, do it yourself." Glancing at the Wikipedian autobiography category (see the bottom of this page) I see the description is not disparaging and I see some quite reputable names, people with whom I feel no shame to share their company.
I have been quite open about having created and having edited this article about myself. There are entries in Wikipedia about cryonics and many entries about cryonicists. I am one of the most notable and well-known persons in the cryonics community, and there are few people (and fewer Wikipedians) who are at all qualified to write on the subject of who I am or what I have done. So I have taken it upon myself and I believe that Wikipedia is better for it, at least from the point of view of those who seek to read this encyclopedia hoping to learn more about those who have contributed to cryonics and life extension. --Ben Best 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's the thing. I'm not sure that it's your talk page - it is the talk page of an encyclopaedia article about you. I think that people come to Wikipedia expecting to read unbiased and neutral coverage of particular topics. Do you agree that people who are reading this article should be informed that it was actually written by the subject? I think that when people read an autobiography, they do so with a certain justifiable level of scrutiny and scepticism that might not be present at the same level when reading an biographical article in an encyclopaedia. What are your thoughts? - Gobeirne 10:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, not my talk page, Gobeirne. And thank you for talking to me about it. By doing so you give me a different feeling about your intentions and concerns than I get when I look by the attack in the ego section below. You are justified in your concerns that people should be fully informed that I have created and edited this article about me and you are right to have labeled it in such a prominent manner.--Ben Best 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

ego

What an ego! Putting yourself on an online encyclopedia is a very pathethic thing to do.

  • I may be an egotist, but it may also be true that the biography I have created about myself is a positive contribution to Wikipedia. What I have written is factual and is limited to my contributions about cryonics and life extension. It does not contain material about my childhood, personality or preferences. For the thousands of people who are interested in cryonics and who are aware of my prominence in the field I have created an information resource that no one else could have created. If I should do soul-searching about having decided this, I think you should do some soul-searching about why my decision evokes such hostile feelings in you. --Ben Best 02:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have any hostile feelings. I just think it's a shame that a good initiative like wikipedia gets abused by people who are not able to look at themselves in the right perspective.
  • It is also possible that your perspective is incorrect. --Ben Best 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This may be, but I can only remark that you don't have any reliable references (besides sites / wikipedia topics that were edited by yourself). You claim to be "the most notable and well-known person in the cryonics community", yet there seems to be no scientific (published) "cryonics" paper containing your name. This last remark however clearly identifies your method of action. It's easy to hide behind a true/false dead-end discussion. That's why people should be protected by this kind of misinformation.


  • I have provided no misinformation in my biography and you have provided no evidence that I have provided misinformation. Cryonics is mainly based on expectations of future science rather than current science, so there are few peer-reviewed publications or papers on the subject. In any case, Tony Blair, Bill Gates, Britney Spears and Ted Williams have not written peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, and yet they are still notable. I am not claiming to be in their league. I am a big fish in a very small pond (the cryonics community). If you want some verification of this, read "The Main Three In Cryonics (Interview)" [PHYSICAL IMMORTALITY; 2(4):6-10 (2004)], which has interviews with Joe Waynick (Alcor President at the time), Robert Ettinger and me. Joe Waynick is no longer Alcor President and Robert Ettinger is semi-retired. Every issue of THE IMMORTALIST magazine contains a President's Report by me. Neither PHYSICAL IMMORTALITY or THE IMMORTALIST are peer-reviewed scientific journals, they are mainly concerned with news, thoughts and plans. (PHYSICAL IMMORTALITY was published by The Venturists, a cryonics group with which I have no direct connection.)
You seem to be equating the potential for falsification with misinformation. As if the fact that I wrote my own biography guarantees that it will be misinformation. That is not necessarily true. It is possible for a self-written biography to have more accurate information, in no small part because we are all the best authorities about ourselves. My biography contains a link to the Cryonics Institute where you can verify that I am President of that organization [[1]]. Of course, as President I have the authority to alter content on that website, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I have used that authority to create misinformation. You could believe that the Cryonics Institute is a fabrication of my imagination. But there are other Wikipedia pages with I did not create and have played only a small part in editing -- notably the cryonics page -- which acknowedges the existence of the Cryonics Institute and its website. You or anyone else is free to correct misinformation if misinformation occurs in this open-source encyclopedia.
You provide misleading information when you quote me as saying I am "the most notable and well-known person in the cryonics community". The exact statement I made (which anyone can read for themselves in my second paragraph at the top of this page) was "I am one of the most notable and well-known persons in the cryonics community". Your omission of the phrase "one of" considerably alters the connotation of the quote. The word "notable" may sound too much like breast-beating, and I should have omitted it. But the cryonics community only consists of a few thousand people at most, so it isn't as if I am making grandiose claims rather than stating the facts.
I believe that your hostile reactions to the "ego" which would allow me to write my own biography are making you less objective than you are claiming to be. My writing of my own biography seems to have "pushed some buttons" in you, and I think that you would benefit from examining your emotional responses, rather than just reacting to them. In any case, it does not necessarily follow that my writing of my biography is proof that I am hiding or contriving to provide misinformation, despite the fact that your feelings about "egotists" may lead you to think that this is the case--Ben Best 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

dates

A date of birth would be nice, as well as a adate of freezing when that happens. Rich Farmbrough 17:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I may be a cryonicist, but I find this comment to be ghastly and even murderous. As if it was written by some scholar interested in tidy and unusual statistics rather than human life and death. I should hope to be vitrified rather than frozen and I should hope that should be in no less than many decades. If my life extension activities are successful, I may reach what Aubrey de Grey calls "escape velocity". --Ben Best 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

disparaging remarks about cryonics

The article contains wikilinks to cryonics, and readers are free to click on it to learn as much about cryonics as they want. Repeatedly inserting at the beginning of this article an out-of-context improperly formatted shot at cryonics, without it even being defined, is essentially vandalism. 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement in question was taken directly from Wikipedia. It's important to distinguish between cryonics, cryogenics and cryobiology because few people understand the important differences. That's no more disparaging than distinguishing between astrology and astronomy.Freezer Man 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)— Freezer Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You no longer own this biography

In clear violation of its policies, you created your autobiography for Wikipedia. However it is now a biography and no longer belongs to you and is not under your control. Wikipedia policy dictates that you "not have any improper influence over the content" of this article.CRANdieter 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)— CRANdieter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have been aware of your personal vendetta against me since you created the identity CRANdieter on the 28th of June [2] as an instrument of personal warfare. Your intent is to mock my practice of Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition (CRAN) along with finding any other possible dirt or means of discrediting me. It appears that originally you were inspired to hate me because my article about the affects of alcohol opposed the POV you wished to promote on the Alcohol consumption and health. So your first step was to study up on me and then attempt to discredit me on the Ben Best page, followed quickly by discrediting commentary on the TALK page of Alcohol consumption and health=> Talk:Alcohol_consumption_and_health#What_kind_of_.22authority.22_is_this.3F.21 and then followed quickly by deletion of references to the article about the health hazards of alcohol that appears on my website [3]. I should note that it was not me who used references to that article as a source of authority, it was User:Usernamefortonyd. I assiduously give peer-reviewed references for the factual information in that article and I am not happy that User:Usernamefortonyd chose to cite my literature review as a primary reference rather than the literature I reviewed. Nonetheless, your claims to User:Usernamefortonyd that you are not motivated by a desire to insult me and engage in personal attack should be transparently false to anyone.
Along the way you seem to have cultivated not only a hatred of me, but of cryonics. So your efforts to discredit me are admixed with efforts to also portray cryonics in the most negative possible light, aside from the fact that you appear to think that cryonics is self-discrediting, based on your reply to me on the TALK page of Alcohol consumption and health=> [4].I was aware of the initial edit of CRANdieter on June 28th because Ben Best is on my watchlist, but I had been unaware of the Alcohol consumption and health page before that date. I was reluctant to engage in an edit war on the Ben Best page when my interest is so obviously at stake, so I did not touch your disparaging edits. Evidently you were feeling unsatisfied about something and felt the need for further discredit and disparagement, so on July 31st you made further hostile edits, which were as disparaging against cryonics as they were against me. I am glad that this aroused concern on the part of 71.160.248.79, who is apparently a cryonicist who chose to come to the defense of me and cryonics. (No, 71.160.248.79 is not my sockpuppet. I edit under my real name.)
I have tried to ensure that Ben Best contained accurate information about me, but as I said, adding factual information and engaging in an edit war are vastly different. You have chosen to delete factual information about me because it is too favorable. The fact that my Cryonics -- Frequently Asked Questions [5] essay has replaced Tim Freeman's cryonics FAQ as the most frequently viewed cryonics FAQ on the internet can be verified by typing "Cryonics FAQ" into Google. There was an orderly transfer of FAQ priority from Tim Freeman to me, I allowed Tim to review and correct before the replacement.
The fact that I have taken such a hands-off approach to your edits should be proof enough that I do not own the article. The question remaining is: will this page be your hobby-horse for personal attack upon me? --Ben Best 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


I am 71.160.248.79. I am not Ben Best, but I do have an interest in the factuality and fairness of this article and the topics it deals with. Regardless of your personal opinions of cryonics and life extension advocacy, these topics are of ongoing public interest (do a Google News search anytime), and Ben Best is a major personality in these fields. The existence of this article is therefore justified. What of its content? Most your CRANdieter edits essentially make fun of Ben Best. This is totally inappropriate for an encylopedia. If you feel parts of this article are inappropriately self-aggrandizing, we should be able to come to a good faith consensus on what needs to be done to make the article more properly encyclopedic. If not, we'll have to bring in more Wikipedians to establish a consensus. But this article will not be allowed to stand as an unencyclopic prank against its subject. 71.160.248.79 20:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that all of the edits (at least all of the ones I can see) that Ben Best made were entirely factual. I really do not understand why there has been such a revert war going on. All of the papers cited seem to be all ones Ben has indeed written, etc. I guess I am not totally comprehending the specific things that CRANdieter has issues with. (Cardsplayer4life 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Character attacks?

Reporting what Ben Best has publicly written about himself and his activities cannot constitute "character attacks."CRANdieter 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)— CRANdieter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Whatever you call them, your inclusion of personal idiosyncracies and introspections make the article comic, not encyclopedic. They have no bearing on the encyclopedic significance of this person, and are tantamount to vandalism of the article. You have also repeatedly deleted references to Bests Internet contributions to cryonics, which are a significant part of his identity in the field. 71.160.248.79 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You have carefully selected my description of personal and financial problems/efforts from my student days as if that accuately characterizes me presently and as if it highly relevant to what someone would want to learn about me as a biographical subject. This selection is not only of little relevance to what I have accomplished in the more productive years of my life, it is clearly designed to discredit me. You are obviously conscious that these are tools in your arsenal for disparagement, otherwise you would not have featured these representations in Talk:Alcohol_consumption_and_health#What_kind_of_.22authority.22_is_this.3F.21. Nor is it hard for an informed reader to miss the fact that you are similarly attempting to characterize cryonics in as disparaging a manner as possible. Why you have chosen to do this on the Ben Best page rather than on the cryonics page is further evidence that I am the ultimate target. What are you gaining from this personal vendetta? What are you gaining by not being straight about your intentions when they are clear for all the world to see? --Ben Best 02:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ben here. Putting derogatory information in for the sake of tearing someone down should not be the aim of an encyclopedic page. It seems as if there have been simultaneous attempts to remove some pieces of information while putting in other pieces that have less to do with the individual that is the focus of the article. I have no personal stake in this, and do not want to get into a fight with anyone, but reviewing the page edit history, that is how I see it. Perhaps it would be good to take up on a policy page or something to see what other wikipedians (and moderators) vote on it, since they are more likely to be unbiased? (Cardsplayer4life 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
I have just reverted another edit by Freezer Man that implements the same deplorable tactic in the links section that was formerly employed in the body of the article. To wit: Delete items pertinent to the public significance of the individual (calling them self-promotional), and selectively add items to make him look kooky.71.160.248.79 19:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears CRANdieter you have now adopted the identity Freezer Man for more focused character attacks. As a point of information I have not edited the Ben Best page since June and I would prefer to avoid editing it again. Therefore, your label on the top of the page "NOTE: This autobiography was begun and is continually edited by Ben Best" is not necessarily correct. Wikipedia has a means of denoting people who have edited pages about themself, namely this label which appears at the top of this page:
Wikipedian The subject of this article, Ben Best/Archive 1, has edited Wikipedia as User:Benbest.
  • (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)
Perhaps under the new identity you are no longer concerned about concealing the fact that your revisions are part of a systematic attack on my character. By what other means would anyone describe removing the link to the homepage of my website, the hippocampal slice research paper and Mechanisms of Aging papers (all of which are highly relevant) by describing them as "self-serving spam" and adding links to my pages about Hemorrhoids, Rosicrucianism and "Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth?" ? These links are certainly an attempt to defame my character for those who only look at the titles. Possibly you have not read these pieces and you do not understand that "Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth?" was written as a somewhat fictional account to indicate issues in the philosopy of science. I certainly do believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The context in which that essay was written should make it clear that it is the account of a fictional person. In any case, deletion of relevant links as spam and inclusion of links intended to make me look bad is not what I would do if I were writing an autobiography.
I could ask: "What I have done to justify such virulent hatred on your part and such an aggressive program aimed at defaming my character?" But it seems that you do not hate me for what I have done to you, but because of who I am and what I believe in. You do not seem to be able to accept the fact that there are people in the world who have a point of view which is different from your own. I prefer to "Live and let live". If I disagree I can argue aggressively, but it is a contest of ideas not of personal attack. I don't like personal venettas, and I believe that I have shown great restraint in light of your attacks. How much do you need to harm me until you are satisfied? Do you like being so hostile? Is it a form of entertainment for you? Does hostility help you accomplish things in life that are really worthwhile? Or am I wrong about the source of your hostility, and is there something I can do to make amends with you? --Ben Best 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Best presents himself as an authority on a wide variety of subjects, yet he doesn't provide information about his education, degrees held, refereed publications, or other evidence that would permit the public to evaluate his credentials and credibility. This , combined with a concerted effort to censor information about what he has written, provides a distorted and very misleading picture at best. The public deserves better than a self-serving puff piece.Freezer Man 00:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)— Freezer Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Let me begin by saying that the presence of this article is justified on Wikipedia, whether Ben Best created it or not. I've created Wikipedia articles on several important personalities in cryonics, and it was just a matter of time before I would have gotten to Ben if he didn't create this article himself. Since you asked for credentials, I've added the degrees I found listed on the page http://www.cryocare.org/index.cgi?subdir=&url=overview.html and assumed those degrees were from Simon Fraser since that is where Ben's personal pages say he went to school. If that is incorrect, Ben can correct us. Ben is not a professional scientist, so he has not authored refereed articles that I am aware of. But there are only three or four scientific journal articles that have ever been written about cryonics, so it is entirely possible to be a bona fide expert on cryonics (which Ben is) despite not having published in journals. That leaves the issue of his Writings. I counted approximately 175 different essays on his website. Your list seems rather arbitrary, and intended to draw snickers (Hemorrhoids??). I've tried to rewrite this section more objectively. I'm actually on the fence about whether Ben's prolific web writings, most of which are not about cryonics or life extension, merit mention in the article. Since you introduced the heading, and since one of the article categories is "autodidacts", perhaps it does belong. Cryobiologist 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I share the Wikipedian anti-elitist spirit and I also don't want people accepting or rejecting the scientific information I present on the basis of my education or lack thereof. I give sources for scientific information and that should be where the authority lies. Very little of what I have written about is what I have learned at school, although my education may have assisted my ability to self-educate. Since you have dredged-out my education I should make some corrections. My pharmacy degree was from the University of British Columbia. Simon Fraser University does not have a Pharmacy School. I got two additional bachelor's degrees from Simon Fraser: a BSc with a double major in Physics & Computing Science and business degree (BBA) with concentrations in Accounting & Finance. I worked part-time as a pharmacist, teamster, taxi-driver and computer operator during my ten years as a full-time student at Simon Fraser and I took both degrees at once.
Thanks for providing that important information.Freezer Man 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)— Freezer Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Thank you, Freezer Man. I do not see a hostile intent in your most recent edit, although I am not sure why you want those specific articles included. If "President" is to be written "president", then "Secretary" should be written "secretary". I see no strong argument for upper or lower case, but I do think consistency is a virtue. --Ben Best 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Freezer Man has it backwards -- I regard it as "puffery" to seek credibility on the basis of one's education rather than on the basis of verifiable evidence or real accomplishment. I hope no one gives more or less credence to what I have written on the basis of my education. I mean for my writings and accomplishments to stand on their own merit.
But CRANdieter is correct that this article is out of my hands -- all the moreso because of my desire to do no more edits on it. (I do not guarantee that I will not edit it again, but I will resist the temptation and will only do so if on the basis of the fact that I know more about myself than others and I want to insure accuracy. Alternatively I could leave messages on the TALK page asking others to make the corrections, but I am uncertain how much this TALK page will be under observation.) It is now more accurate to say that I "started" the article than to say that I "created" it, which implies that I have written and control all of the current content. There have been other edits by others before CRANdieter entered the picture, although none have been what could be called major changes. --Ben Best 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Freezer Man, you've had your fun, but enough is enough. Adding to the list articles about lying, hemorrhoids, and geocentrism (with a parenthetical lie) are bad faith edits. And Ben, maybe if you were more upfront with your academic credentials on your personal pages so people wouldn't have to scour the deep web to find them, there would be less skepticism about your credibility. It's just the way the world works. Cryobiologist 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Cryobiologist. I still think people should judge my writings on their own merit not on the basis of whatever education that I have. The "way the world works" is that too many people don't think for themselves or evaluate evidence. If you are going to give my education, the information should be correct. The pharmacy degree is from UBC, not SFU. Thanks again. --Ben Best 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction about my education, Cryobiologist. It seems that Freezer Man is determined to include links to the other essays, but I am not convinced that this is a hostile act. The parenthetical comment "(He says not)" following "Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth?" is not a lie -- or, at least, does not mislead readers about my understanding. --Ben Best 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Apologies to Freezer Man for characterizing his parenthetical comment about the geocentrism article as a lie. After so many other snide edits to this article, I assumed the worst without properly reading what was written. Of course I still question the need, motivation, and selection criteria for listing those additional articles. Cryobiologist 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism resumes

There is a pattern emerging here. CRANdieter/Freezer Man (identities created for the primary purpose of hacking the Ben Best page or links to it) makes bad faith edits. Administrators notice that the article is stupid looking and unencyclopedic, and sometimes correct it. Freezer Man improves his behavior the day the Admin visits, appearing to be reasonable, almost reaching consensus. Shortly thereafter Freezer Man reverts Admin edits, and makes more bad faith edits containing deliberately misleading information to make the article a joke on Ben Best rather than an encyclopdedia article. There should be no more compromises with this individual, who is deliberately hostile to the interests of a serious encyclopedia, and basically doing as much damage as he thinks he can get away with. Cryobiologist 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Alert"

ALERT: This article about Ben Best, which some consider a vanity article, was started by Ben Best himself. Ben Best apparently attempts to control its content both directly and indirectly. He and other cryonic activists censor information in order to present an unbalanced (auto)biography of Ben Best that lacks a neutral point of view.

For example, they object to including autobiographical information that Ben Best has, himself, publicly posted on his and other websites:

Ben Best’s perspective has been enriched by a diversity of life experiences. He reports that throughout much of his life he was a "professional student", taxi-driver, Teamster, computer operator and "whatever other work I could find" [6].
Committed to life extension, Ben Best is a self-described "raw foodist" and his daily exercise and diet regimens are described in detail on his website as an example from which others can learn. The exact daily content, weight and calculated caloric value of two months of his diet are also archived there as illustrative [7].
Ben Best’s open-mindedness and desire for self-improvement is evident. He writes that he "aggressively participated" in EST and various other human potential movements and describes many of his activities as designed to help him overcome fear of women and various anxieties. [8] [9].

This information appears to be positive, although Ben Best and his fellow activists apparently view it as either negative or not positive enough to be acceptable.Freezer Man 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)— Freezer Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Readers should be alerted, if it is not clear from other material on this TALK page that Freezer Man is on a personal vendetta against me. He is attempting to avoid the accusation of vandalism by selecting material he believes will show me in the worst possible light. I myself was duped to imagine that he might not have been malicious in his selection of articles (which Cryobiologist characterized as "weird") that I have written.
Freezer Man claims that this is a "vanity" article because I started it. However, the article I started merely described my role in the world of cryonics and life extension. If Wikipedia is to cover the subject of cryonics, doesn't it make sense to have a entry about the President of one of the two largest cryonics organizations? It is Freezer Man who has insisted on adding personal material to the biography. He has succeeded with respect to getting a section on my writings and extracting the details of my education. The patience and persistance of his campaign of deprecation is a remarkable tribute to the power of hate. But it does not explain the source of that hate. --Ben Best 17:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It is patently ridiculous to claim that odd jobs done while in school, exercise and dietary regimens, and activities to "overcome fear of women" somehow belong in an encyclopedia. That kind of stuff belongs in a book-length biography (maybe), not an encyclopedia article. Cryobiologist 19:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been told on my talk page not to include the essential information that Ben Best started the article about himself. However, Ben Best himself earlier wrote to Gobeirne that "You are justified in your concerns that people should be fully informed that I have created and edited this article about me and you are right to have labeled it in such a prominent manner.--Ben Best 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"
So if Ben Best is honest and has has any integrity at all (and I believe he does), he will insert ", who started this page," in the introductory sentence of the biography.Freezer Man 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)— Freezer Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The article and this discussion page conform to Wikipedia policy. There are two very prominent boxes at the top of the discussion page both of which indicates that I have edited the page. I expect that when the biography project is over, those will be the two prominent boxes that remain. At the bottom of this page, included in "Categories" is "Wikipedian autobiographies". I believe that this label and your claim that this is an autobiography is not strictly correct. Although I have had a major influence on the content, there have been many edits by others, including deletions, additions and alterations. And since the month of June I have adopted a complete "hands-off" policy concerning the "Ben Best" page.
Your most recent edit to the "Writings" section is not only unsubstantiated, but false: "Ben Best has also listed his autobiographical entry at AllExperts. [10]" Not only is it inexact to call the "Ben Best" biography an "autobiography" when I cannot have control of the content, and not only is this an attempt on your part to circumvent the policies described to you by User:Shanes at User talk:Freezer Man, it is incorrect that I added the entry you cited to the "About.com" encyclopedia. There are several online encyclopedias which blatantly copy Wikipedia content. "Answers.com" [11] is another such copier of Wikipedia, but at least they cite their source. --Ben Best 06:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ben Best himself earlier wrote to Gobeirne that "You are justified in your concerns that people should be fully informed that I have created and edited this article about me and you are right to have labeled it in such a prominent manner.--Ben Best 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"
So if Ben Best is honest and has has any integrity at all (and I believe he does), he will insert ", who started this page," in the introductory sentence of the biography.Freezer Man 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC) OR he will state that he believes such a statement should be added so that readers are fully informed, as he says they should be. This is the litmus test of honesty and integrity. Will Ben Best pass the test?Freezer Man 14:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)— Freezer Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I can understand your eager to inform readers that Ben Best has edited this article. But who has contributed to, or even started an article, is never included in the article text on wikipedia. Agree or disagree, but that's just not something we do. A reader can view the article history by clicking the history button, but that's about it. I do agree that who wrote an article could be seen as important for understanding any bias, but instead of keeping a verifyable track of all the authors, we just strive to keep any article on Wikipedia neutral and encourage anyone to edit and help with this. Though we do strongly discurrage people from editing articles about themselves per the Wikipedia:Autobiography guideline, it's not forbidden, and that someone has done so is not seen as such a notable event that it merits inclusion in the bio on him.

As to the about.com entry on him, I believe that's just a copy of a prior version of this bio as many other articles on that site. They regularely pull the latest wikipedia-article on many subjects and publish them as they are. That's all fine and nothing to put in an article on Ben Best. Shanes 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Distressing behaviour

It’s distressing that Ben chose to write an encyclopedia article about himself. Even worse is the fact that he and his friends/associates appear determined to control the content of that article. Wikipedia policy repeatedly discourages these practices. In one of the places where this issue is discussed, Wikipedia states that:

It is a faux pas to write about yourself, according to Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder. [1]
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself [2]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing.

Ben also appears to have violated Wikipedia policy by writing/editing about his businesses, friends and associates, etc., which is a conflict of interest. A few examples of such unacceptable involvement include:

and the list, unfortunately, goes on.

Ben’s actions seem harmful to the cryonics movement.Cecelia Hensley 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)— Cecelia Hensley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Many-Headed Hydra of Freezer Man's sock puppets

Is Cecelia Hensley -- who is so "distressed" that my actions may be "harmful to the cryonics movement" (Talk:Ben_Best#Distressing_behaviour) -- yet another sock puppet of Freezer Man aka CRANdieter? (As is evident from their histories, these two sock puppets were created for the purpose of defaming my character: User:Freezer Man[12] and User:CRANdieter[13]). If so, it appears that this one was created so as to appear to be a cryonics sympathizer who is designed to discredit me from "within" cryonics [14]. A tip-off about the critique above is that it follows so quickly on the heels Freezer Man's edits to Talk:Denham Harman and Talk:Curtis Henderson and makes the same point. User:Freezer Man is not the least bit subtle in the coordinated use of his sock puppets. Notice the seamless conversion of CRANdieter to Freezer Man in the "revert war" of August 8th: [15]. My enemy apparently showed no more subtlety in this than was shown when converting from sock puppet Happy Savage to Dwayne McGee on July 22nd in the "revert war" with User:Nunquam Dormio on the Alcohol consumption and health page [16].Obviously my enemy as both Freezer Man and Cecelia Hensley has just been studying my Wikipedia edit history carefully as part of his campaign to attack and discredit me. If the sock puppet Cecelia Hensley is so sympathetic to cryonics and life extension, why is that sock puppet so critical about the edits I have made to enhance many pages dealing with those subjects? What is it about those edits that causes Cecelia Hensley to believe that they are "harmful to the cryonics movement"? Does my enemy seriously believe that this will be a rallying cry among cryonicists to drive me from the cryonics movement? My enemy is relentless, diabolical and hate-filled, but not insightful or knowlegeable enough to convincingly posture as a cryonicist. --Ben Best 04:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the harassment

This talk page is for discussing the article on Ben Best, not discussing what Ben Best does as a Wikipedia Editor. He has edited this article, which is something a guideline recommends someone shouldn't do, but it's actually not forbidden. And if he has made any edits here or in other articles that people find biased or factually wrong, then please correct them or take it up on those talk pages. But stop using this talk page as a soapbox for hatred against his person. Discuss the article. Edit the article. But stop harassing him as a person or Wikipedia editor here. If anyone wants to make general comments about the edits User:Benbest makes on Wikipedia, do it on User talk:Benbest. For a wider view, a request for comments can be made. But, please stop harassing him here. Shanes 05:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Shanes. I hope that this warning is more effective than any of the warnings in the past have been. I have more constructive uses for my energy than to be fighting a senseless vendetta with Freezer Man and his family of sock puppets. I can only hope that Freezer Man can find more constructive and personally rewarding channels for his energy than attacking me. --Ben Best 08:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

?????????????????????Cecelia Hensley 18:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)— Cecelia Hensley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Google ratings and other listings are objective facts, not POV

User:NamfFohyr has made edits to the Ben Best page claiming that "statements about 'Google ranking' are clearly POV" -- a claim which I believe is a mistaken POV. Statements about Google rankings are not only objective facts, they are easily verified. The public impact of my essays, as judged by Google rankings is information about their significance well as the significance of the Ben Best page. It is an objective fact that typing:

  • causes of death
  • neurotransmitters
  • history of christmas
  • cryonics FAQ
  • (etc)

into Google results in listings of my essay in a prominent position on the first page. In the case of "cryonics FAQ" it is at the top of the first page, an indication that the cryonics FAQ that I have written has replaced the cryonics FAQ by Tim Freeman as the most prominent cryonics FAQ on the internet. This is also acknowledged on the CryoNet Homepage where "Ben Best's Cryonics FAQ" replaces "Tim Freeman's Cryonics FAQ" and by Tim Freeman himself [17]

I have a "hands-off" policy to the Ben Best page, so it is not for me to revert this change. I am complaining not for reasons of self-promotion, but for reasons of cryonics education. I am eager to see people learning about cryonics from the most informative sources. I want to see people informed of both the existance and noteworthiness of the "cryonics FAQ". Both the existence and noteworthiness of that essay is an easily verified objective fact and I request that someone restore this information to the Ben Best page. --Ben Best 07:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben Best's self-promotional drive is unrivaled. He wants to spam Wikipedia because he says "I want to see people informed of both the existence and noteworthiness of the 'cryonics FAAQ'"..."that I have written."
Ben Best's piece is a big fish in a very small pond. It may or may not be noteworthy, but that's not for Ben Best himself to decide and he shouldn't be prodding others to do his will.CopOnTheBeat 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)— CopOnTheBeat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I added the high Google ranking of Ben Best's articles because it is an objective fact that I believe is noteworthy. Ironically, it may be the only fact that makes Best's writings noteworthy. Why do Best's writings warrant Wikipedia mention compared to all the other self-published drivel on the web if not for a high Google ranking? If the significance of Google ranking is now being questioned, perhaps the entire Writings section should just be deep sixed. It already occupies too much of a Wikipedia article about a guy who's real public signficance is cryonics and life extension, not writings on general topics. It is afterall supposed to be an encylopedia article, not a resume or bio. I therefore suggest the compromise of shortening the Writings section by not mentioning either the Google ranking or the silly so-called "breadth of interests" titles. 71.160.248.79 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A REPLY FROM NAMFFOHYR: Google's pagerank approach does not assess quality, a shortcoming they acknowledge. Google rankings are about popularity, and this egomaniac clearly is doing everything possible to inflate the perception of his popularity. Could you imagine an edit to the Judaism article that dignifies citation of Protocols of the Elders of Zion due to a high Google pagerank? Absurd! I recommend everyone make reference to the page history before falling for his account of the events. And someone should wikify "CEO" in his opening sentence, to make it clear that he is inflating his credentials by reference to a corporate position and not something amounting to a bonified scientific credential. rmbh 23:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right popularity is not a guarantee of quality, but Google ratings are nonetheless objective facts, not POV. The fact that my cryonics FAQ is the most widely read cryonics FAQ on the internet is supported by the top Google rating. Even if you think cryonics is pseudoscientific crap, it is still noteworthy that the FAQ which I have written is so widely read. Also, the cryonics FAQ deals with many aspects of cryonics other than the scientific ones -- cultural, legal, ethical, organizational, etc. My many years of experience in cryonics and given me the background to write about these subjects with a great deal of authority. Again, the fact that you may think cryonics is crap has no bearing on this. --Ben Best 00:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ben Best says that rank popularity is an objective fact rather than POV. However, choosing to include that objective fact reflects a POV.
It's an objective fact that:
  • that throughout much of his life Ben Best was a "professional student", taxi-driver, Teamster, computer operator and "whatever other work I could find" [18],
  • that Ben Best is a self-described "raw foodist." His daily exercise and diet regimens are described in detail on his website as an example from which others can learn. The exact daily content, weight and calculated caloric value of two months of his diet are also archived there as illustrative [19].
  • that Ben Best "aggressively participated" in EST and various other human potential movements and describes many of his activities as designed to help him overcome fear of women and various anxieties. [20] [21].
These are objective facts and the pages on which they appear are popular. Therefore, according to Ben Best, their inclusion would not reflect a POV. So it looks like this information can now be returned to his biography!Freezer Man 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)— Freezer Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes, you are right popularity is not a guarantee of quality, but Google ratings are nonetheless objective facts, not POV. The fact that my cryonics FAQ is the most widely read cryonics FAQ on the internet is supported by the top Google rating. Even if you think cryonics is pseudoscientific crap, it is still noteworthy that the FAQ which I have written is so widely read. Also, the cryonics FAQ deals with many aspects of cryonics other than the scientific ones -- cultural, legal, ethical, organizational, etc. My many years of experience in cryonics and given me the background to write about these subjects with a great deal of authority. Again, the fact that you may think cryonics is crap has no bearing on this. --Ben Best 00:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ben (I'm Ryan), I'd like to apologize for the name calling ("egomaniac") above, or mentioning that you're a self-serving corporatized shill. It was mean. Moreover it was bad argumentative form; I ignored all of the ...content... that you wrote to kick off the thread. Here I'd like to settle this particular discussion. I agree completely with the statements that a) Google ratings are objective facts and b) my opinions about cryonics have no bearing on this (I don't think it's all crap. Why would I even read a cryonics article? It's not like I was looking for for porn and stumbled upon your autobiography-page.) However, any person above that agree's that the ratings are objectively presented is in error. AT MINIMUM one needs to know which search queries were used! At the start of this thread you state your "objective" position as a Google search ending in "* (etc)". Isn't that so obviously self-fulfililng? And isn't the searchable content of Google constently changing (being updated by spiders, robots, or self-promoting entities)? One can't reliably reconstruct searches, then, at all points in time. When I've (non-self) published a reference to a web URL, the journal editors wanted me to state the accession time. Makes sense to me. Surely Google ratings are deterministic but that doesn't make them objective or truthful when invoked in all contexts. All of that doesn't matter though; those points are academic. Let's REALLY talk turkey.
The edits that annoy you - logged at 13:46, August 27, 2006 - reads (original): "Ben Best has self-published articles on his website on more than 150 diverse topics ranging from science and medicine to history and philosophical musings. Several articles on popular topics are top or near top ranked by Google for their subject matter. Articles reported to be accessed most frequently include:" which I changed to "Ben Best has self-published articles on his website on more than 150 diverse topics ranging from science and medicine to history and philosophical musings. Articles reported to be accessed most frequently include:" Now, you cited Google in a context where normally one cites some sort of authority that reviewed the book. The context implied that being "top ranked by Google for their subject manner" is COMPLETELY different than "top ranked by Google for popularity" or "top ranked by Google for ... see Google for a complete disclosure of their PageRank (tm) algorithm" (haha) or something LESS POV. Ben, let us trim this article, and don't police it so much. It shows bad faith in our intentions–I'm not a vandal. My edits made this insipid article easier to stomach. You should want them. As I said in my edit summary.rmbh 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. Thanks for toning down your hostile attack upon me a few decibels. Although that may sound sarcastic (I do recognize your sarcasm), it is sincere. I appreciate any reduction of hostility and personal attack and I hope you will see no elements of personal attack in my reply. I am beyond expecting any such reduction of personal attack from Freezer Man or his family of sock puppets. Your attacks are giving him plenty of encouragement, which I hope does not please you too much. For the record, I have made no edits to the Ben Best article since June, and this whole business of including references to the variety of my unpublished work began with Freezer Man's edit of August 8th:[22] I had nothing to do with "Ben Best has self-published articles on his website on more than 150 diverse topics ranging from science and medicine to history and philosophical musings..." etc, which you can verify for yourself by examining the history of Ben Best before and after the August 8th. I believe that it is proper that there be an entry in Wikipedia about my contributions to life extension and cryonics, but it was not my idea to include all of the personal crap that Freezer Man and his family of sock puppets added. The edits since June to Ben Best have all been the result of the sock puppet family and responses by cryonicists and administrators. If you are not hostile to the concept of cryonics, perhaps you can appreciate that I am not a "corporate shill". I am a person who has devoted his life to cryonics and life extension, and the most effective way I can do this is by being President of a cryonics organization. If you are sympathetic to cryonics perhaps you can understand that I am driven by a desire for greatly extended lifespan for myself and for all others who share that desire. If you are sympathetic to cryonics perhaps you can appreciate that I work hard -- and occasionally suffer persecution -- to achieve my ideals. I would not have objected to your edits of August 27th if you had not deleted the link to the cryonics FAQ. You could have altered the text without deleting it. My cryonics FAQ is a very noteworthy part of my work for the cause of life extension and cryonics. Neither a link to the article nor a description of its significance should be omitted from a biography about me. As for the articles about the History of Christmas, Causes of Death, etc, I really don't care if references to that stuff or Google ratings are omitted. My significance in the world -- and the relevance of my inclusion in Wikipedia -- is due to my work for cryonics and, to a lesser extent, life extension. If you recognize this, perhaps you can even assist in resisting the efforts of Freezer Man and his other sock puppets to include irrelevant personal material about me for the purpose of deprecating my character. --Ben Best 07:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some "hands off" policy!!!

Ya gotta be kiddin'! Ben Best first creates his own biography on Wikipedia then claims to have a "hands off" policy. But then he tries to manipulate the content anyway. See, for example User talk:Cryobiologist. In grade school that's called cheating, and that's exactly what it is! Now watch his response -- he'll strike out at me instead of apologizing for his behavior.CopOnTheBeat 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)— CopOnTheBeat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I know more about myself than anyone else and therefore I can offer information that others do not know. It is not "cheating" to suggest factual improvements in the content of an article -- even a biography of the person requesting the corrections. Calling me a "cheater" and "manipulator" are violations of Wikipedia policy -- see Wikipedia:No personal attacks -- whether you call yourself CopOnTheBeat, Freezer Man or CRANdieter. Whether or not you are a new person a personal attack is a personal attack. And I am not "striking out at you" (attacking you) by calling a personal attack a personal attack. I have nothing to apologize for in suggesting factual corrections. --Ben Best 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed you do know more about yourself than anyone else, but we all lack perspective about the significance of our own accomplishments. Your failure to abide by your publicly stated word that you would remain "hands off" is a betrayal of trust and honor for which you should apologize. Because of your inflated ego I don't expect that you will apologize but rather attack me instead.CopOnTheBeat 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)— CopOnTheBeat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have abided by what I meant -- not by your interpretation of what I meant -- by "hands off". Giving factual information to others -- who can decide for themselves what to do with that information -- is very different from actually editing the page myself. You did not complain earlier when I corrected the misinformation that I had gotten my pharmacy degree from SFU. If I can provide useful information on the Ben Best TALK page or other TALK pages I won't hesitate to do so. --Ben Best 23:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ben Best sounds like a little boy who insists he wasn't lying because he had his fingers crossed when he said something untrue.Freezer Man 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)— Freezer Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Your accusation that I have engaged in a childish deceptive practice is based upon a misinterpretation of what I meant when I said "hands off". By "hands off" I meant not personally editing the page. You yourself demanded on this TALK page that I provide information about my education [23], and I accommodated your request on this TALK page. Requesting a correction or enhancement of the Ben Best Wikipedia entry on the TALK pages of other users and of administrators does not involve me editing the entry -- others are free to follow or ignore my advice or request (and have done so). My conduct has not contradicted what *I meant* (not your interpretation of what I meant) by "hands off". --Ben Best 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tightened into real encyclopedia article

Dropped description of activities/personnel of organization Ben heads. (A college president doesn't list his faculty and their publications in his own resume and a busines executive doesn't list his employees and their achievements in his.) Dropped conference atendance, which isn't significant. Dropped self-published articles per discussion elsewhere on this page.Cecelia Hensley 14:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— Cecelia Hensley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.