Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:38, 31 January 2022

Revision as of 15:39, 31 January 2022

Line 659:

==Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable==

===Aggressive Evidence presentedediting by Roxy the dog Dog===

Dozens of diffs had been submitted showing un-collegial editing by Roxy and other skeptics – e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vernon_Coleman&diff=prev&oldid=1063597685 I'm just messing with your head.] These [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FSkepticism_and_coordinated_editing%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=1066486133&oldid=1066482482 were] later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=1067535627 retracted]. Yet the aggressive editing took place. Roxy's aggression is not apparently confined to online posts. He posted about deciding to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1051633189 confront] the Colonel in real life. An aggressive editor talking of physically confronting others could exert a chilling effect on those who lack the Colonel's exceptional physical courage, and who might otherwise wish to edit from different perspectives.

This is not to argue for severe sanctions. While CSI style scepticism is not always aligned with mainstream science or the wider Wikipedia community -

I am not, and have never been, a member of "GSoW" or "Guerilla Skeptics".

{{Collapse top| Links showing what I mean for the curious, does not have to be evaluated by Arbs as not fully in scope }}

[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 139| Here]] is an example of a well attended 2018 RfC where a skeptic attempt to strengthen policy against Alt. medicine was roundly rejected by serious editors, including some of the leading lights from MEDS. Mainstream scientists know it's false to assume fellow scientists can always be trusted to honestly report empirical findings. One of the most widely cited papers among sicentists over the last decade is [[Why Most Published Research Findings Are False]]. Our [[Scientific misconduct]] article understates the extensiveness of dishonesty – even in the UK [https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e377 "One in seven UK based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication"]. For over a decade our article on [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry|CSI]] has highlighted incidents where they appear to have suppressed results that don't align with their mechanistic world view. While some whole life science departments may agree with CSI style materialism, few physicists do. (For non scientists, the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yis7GzlXNM Bill Nye v Newton] rap is nice source showing how out of their depth sceptics are against a top rank "Woo" believing scientist. Especially if you know how feeble Nye's Incel insult is considering Newton had a relationship with Lady Alchemyda. As even the atheist Lord Keynes knew, even if you see her as a mental construct rather than an entity with supernatural reality, she is far more sexually keen than any human partner.) Sceptical editors have also been over aggressive in confronting mainstream scientists who try to add content that doesn't even vaguely challenge materialism, e.g. as described [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence#Beall4_a_mainstream_scientist here.]

Much of my editing could be said to be co-ordinated by Talk pages, Noticeboards and Projects. I often vote at AfD's where I was canvassed by notifications on Project pages, as do many others. I do not co-ordinate off-wiki.

{{Collapse bottom}}

- the oft repeated view that skeptical editors are hugely valuable in protecting us from harmful fringe is true. Extensive engagement with fringe pushers is liable to be frustrating. Hence there is a case for being less quick to sanction skeptics, even if they let their stress cause them to be uncivil to mainstream editors. And I see no reasons why they cant be allowed a reasonable amount of off-wiki coordination, as afforded to several other groups. But Roxy could benefit from a reminder about WP:Civil, or possibly even a caution.

Note that in my "messing ... " comment, recently highlighted, I responded to an accusation of being in the pay of Google or Government. In full, it read "Neither Google nor Government, I'm just messing with your head." -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by {username}==

''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person''

==={Write your assertion here}===

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

==={Write your assertion here}===

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

==Evidence presented by {your user name}==