User talk:Roxy the dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


COI[edit]

fwiw, having been subjected to hounding, i find this to be "bad dog" behavior. Please don't hound anybody, for anything. If you really believe there is a COI issue, bring a case to COIN, and guide it to resolution. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, jytdog,for pointing this out. It is very difficult for me to understand how such a conflicted SPA is allowed to continue without a broadly construed fringe topic lifetime ban. I deny any hounding though. M8 knows what I think, and my ad hoc comments to him are at least consistent in approach. I do take care not to hound, any appearance of hounding is caused by us having similar interests, me just because I dislike fraud, and him due to pecuniary interests. What surprises me is that you don,t appear to see the problem in the same terms. I don't understand that. Regarding COIN, I don't feel I have the skill, or ability to even bring and guide anything to any of the drama boards, let alone this one. Methinks he doth protest too much. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
i appreciate your response, i do. Bringing up a behavioral issue (like COI) repeatedly is hounding; much better to use article Talk pages to focus on content and sources (comment on content, not contributor). Bringing a case at COIN is not that hard! you have to fill in a couple of blanks, and present the reasons that you think there is a COI. I am not ~sure~ there is a COI with alt-med practitioners. What they do is legal - they need a license to practice, in most states, as far as I know. And I don't know any legal profession where we forbid professionals from writing about their field. Lawyers can write about law; doctors can write about medicine, etc. You see my point there? That is the "no COI per se" side that I see (it would be different if a lawyer wrote about her own cases or practice, or a doctor wrote about his medical practice... but M8 is not doing that.) On the "yep there is a COI" side, is the whole FRINGE nature of the underlying theory, and the FRINGE nature of some claims made for what acu can do. That makes it... funky to have a practitioner writing about that, as one can see that he or she would have an interest in making the field more legitimate, than MEDRS sources say it is. The whole thing is complicated in that (in my view) sometimes the anti-Quack editors make statements that are too general and fail NPOV, and even i have pushed back against that. So M8 has had ~some~ gripes that are valid in my view. Most importantly, the community hasn't given a clear opinion on this - we need a better RfC that actually gets closed. So there you go. I've been debating launching that RfC myself at COIN. Very hard to write a truly neutral one. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable talking about Middle 8 without him knowing. I suspect he stalks, and that isn't a problem at all, but just in case. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
good on you. i hope in any case that what i wrote made sense. thanks for asking. always good to talk with you. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I notice you are comparing apples with oranges when you try to compare Docs writing about medicine, and quacks writing about their quackery of choice - IYSWIM? So no, but well sort of, well, kinda absolutely not, sorta thing. I'll respond a little more when I have thought about it properly, and give a less knee-jerk reaction. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
thoughtful dog. good dog! Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (talk page stalker) adds:

  • Something to consider: Alternative Medicine#Conflicts of interest.
  • This blog post from Ernst may also be pertinent, esp.

    There is no question in my mind that creeds can represent an even more powerful conflict of interest than financial matters.

    Moreover, this belief is indivisibly intertwined with existential issues. In alternative medicine, there may not be huge amounts of money at stake but practitioners’ livelihoods are perceived to be at risk. If an acupuncturist, for instance, argues in favour of his therapy, he also consciously or sub-consciously is trying to protect his income.

    Some might say that this not different from conventional medicine, but I disagree: if we take away one specific therapy from a doctor because it turns out to be useless or unsafe, he will be able to use another one; if we take the acupuncture needle away from an acupuncturist, we have deprived him of his livelihood.

Alexbrn (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

as for the first bit there, i agree that WP:ADVOCACY is a corrupting influence in WP. We distinguish between advocacy and COI in WP. The second part syncs with what i wrote above on the "yep there is a COI" side. (on the other hand, there is no end to where things go, when you start flinging around accusations of COI - i am sure you are well aware of claims that the FDA and the medical establishment are in the pocket of pharma and that clinical trials funded by pharma come out with more positive outcomes than independently funded ones) A widely-publicized RfC on this issue would be interesting, for sure. I have no idea how it would come out, but i reckon it would become messy, pretty fast. Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Will you guys please stop giving me things to think about! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
“yep there is a COI side” ← seems a reasonable statement. What we sometimes hear – a definite assertion that there is no COI aspect in such cases – is, I think, not reasonable. I find the skeptical commentary on this quite persuasive and it gives a toehold in sources; I don't know if there's any really strong RS on this topic however. Previously, arbcom has held certain types of creed-driven editing to be problematic - e.g. from anthroposophists and scientologists, though there was more to it than just COI for the scientology case, for sure.
In general I think the meta-discussion which you're leading elsewhere is also very useful and have come to agree that pursuing COI on WP is probably futile. Much better to concentrate on the NPOV aspect. So if an editor makes a series of "unidirectional" mistakes in favour of a POV this is suggestive of a problem. If that editor had a potential COI that too might be suggestive evidence in support of an explanation, but the real problem that can be examined and decided on WP would be the NPOV problem in the realm of editing. We can know what editors have done on Wikpedia; we can't realistically know that they do in real life or probe their thought processes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
(Add) Another aspect here which niggles, is that among the WT:MED crew there is a kind of esprit de corps whereby (it is sometimes said) members hold themselves to a particularly high standard when it comes to COI. So when we have a medical topic where an editor's situation could be said to give rise to a "reasonable perception" of COI then I just think they should bloody well recuse themselves from that topic because (to use a phrase popular here in the UK in election season) it is "the right thing to do". Alexbrn (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
hm! first, please know that i really do think the question of whether alt-med practitioners have an inherent COI is live and interesting - I don't know what the right answer is and more importantly, the community doesn't know, and that without consensus on that, pursuing a claim of COI against any alt-med practitioner based on that alone, is going to be fruitless and becomes harrasment-y. I am so happy to hear you picking up on the NPOV thing. Applying that here, in my view Middle 8's edits generally are not wildly pro-acu - last i checked, he acknowledges that qi is pseudoscience and that we don't really know why it even could work, and that there are limits to what we can say that acu can do, unlike more aggressive pro-acu editors in the fray. I think looking at his diffs as a whole it would be harder to successfully bring an NPOV case against him than others. That is all based on my memory of looking carefully at what was going on, back when I was involved in the acu article. I may be remembering wrong and there may be lots of stuff I am not aware of. interesting note about ProjectMed editors recusing themselves. I don't know (and i really don't) if we have such specialized articles on acu (like we have scads of articles on various drugs, medical devices, etc, any one of which someone at ProjectMed may have a COI) Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better stated that in WT:MED, editors should hold themselves to a high standard. I hope they generally do! The one weakness with the NPOV approach to combating advocacy is that sometimes WP:CPUSHing can be done very subtly in a way which is difficult to prosecute (and I thinking in particular of an area away from M8 / altmed now). I am fairly sure that in some articles there are teams of coordinating editors who not only advocate for their interests but who are smart enough to do it ever-so-slowly and incrementally, so that the effort of documenting a case against them would be so great as to be impractical. But then there are those who say the idea that Wikipedia can defend against concerted POV-pushing is a fond fantasy anyway! Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
yep. this is what people say about me, too. advocacy and sophisticated editors with a COI are some of the hardest problems we have in WP... as are editors who have concerns about that and hound people about it, instead of bringing carefully thought out cases to appropriate forums. it is hard, all around. and the integrity of WP is at stake, on the level of content, and on the level of what kind of behavior we encourage/allow or do not encourage/forbid. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I hear you, but I think it is really important to avoid drawing a parallel between the conspiracism which labels (for example) any non-negative edit to a corporate article as a "tell" of a corporate shill, and legitimate concerns about systematic manipulation of content. I know that's to invite a charge of it all being a matter of one's POV which is which, but that's just lazy relativism. I suppose IRL one of the antidotes to COI is transparency. But on WP (as in most places on the 'net), anonymity is prized - which works in completely the opposite direction. Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
with that i agree 100% - as you know better than i we have to uphold the mainstream against the FRINGE constantly. the problematic part is the surface similarity of the claims. we have to be as rigorous bringing an accusation of COI/GANG/systemtic-NPOV-violations as we are with providing sources for health-content. Rigor is the answer, and sloppy thinking/shoot-from-the-hip claims, are the problem, from the foundation up. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You know the subject of the OP in this thread? I think I'll have to change my plea to guilty as charged M'Lud. and not just with M8, but other examples could be found by the stupidly diligent, against other trigger eds. Oh dear me. I'm not very comfortable with this, because i hadn't seen it that way previously. This is partly an after beer revelation - not sure what to do next. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

By 23:20 I'd have thought you'd be onto the single malt! ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
well do tell, and please ping him when you do.Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Why? the issue in this case is specifically my own behaviour, wp:hound. M8's COI remains, but WP:HOUND prevents me from pointing it out at convenient opportunities, so I'll stop. I've already notified him about this thread. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
and on that subject, as well as looking at WP:COI, perhaps WP:CIR should come into play too. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I am very sorry, you 'are the subject of this thread, Roxy. my bad. So you are notified. :) So - tell me your thinking, please! Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
My thinking? You really don't want to know.
I haven't behaved differently here than anywhere else on teh internetz, or real life. I once took a lovely expensively produced leaflet handed to me by a Reiki master, and ripped it into useful firelighting material, explaining to him that shite like his leaflet is always good for lighting fires. Advocates of woo do not improve the project. COI advocates of woo' writing about their woo of choice do dot improve the project. COI and WP:CIR advocates of woo writing about their woo of choice do not improve the project.
So you'll be happy to know that my WP:HOUNDING days are over. It doesn't change how I feel though, and don't expect me to be circumspect if I make my position very clear, without breaking PAG.
(Waits for all my assumptions to be shown to be flawed)
ADDENDUM : I am grateful though, for the effort you guys are putting in to help clarify my thinking - but there are other more important things afoot, which you guys should prioritise far ahead of me. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
roxy i love your spirit and the sense of humor you bring. on the other hand... i don't think it is a good thing for WP when anybody logs in, in this mode, and acts like this or this. this is not realistic, of course, but this and this is always good.  :) i wish there were a good image of "check your ax at the door" (showing a viking giving his ax to a somewhat scared coatcheck person) but i have never found one. of course, people don't do that, so we need our quackfighters. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jdog, and Alex. There is a lot to think about here with regard to COI, and as I hinted above, lots going on right now that needs attention. I've been monitoring various discussions and dramas that are ongoing, and learned about why Jdog has a COI statement. I have a question though. Has "The Litmus Paper" brought all of them out? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
sure! i don't know what paper is, sorry. what is it? Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Alex said that the COIDucks essay would bring out people of a certain pov like litmus paper, so it has acquired a new name. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
oh i see! i was over-involved at ANI recently and several of the editors i have upset over my editing career came, and found each other. the key thing that i see, that they have in common is that they don't like me and believe i am either conflicted or a jerk, or both. in any case the essay idea started there at ANI - see my !vote at the deletion discussion of the essay for the details of what happened, from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just changed my sig, in honour of this thread. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
and you just made me laugh, and hard. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering what the name change was about. I feel like I've actually seen an image like this somewhere (Gary Larson-esque maybe). I'm going to keep my eyes open for this now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject med[edit]

Orac has hacked my watchlist and reproduced it on his blog. Who should I report it to? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)........hi did you leave this message at the med talk page, if so I would suggest taking it to ANI..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Ozzie, if my slightly terribly bad attempt at humour has not registered with you. I quite understand if you have deleted that comment from the med project board, (Just checked, you haven't). Its just that I was looking at Orac's blog post, linked in that thread, and the list of pseudoscientific therapies he has posted looks like my watch list. sorry. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
oh, i get it. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ernst acu[edit]

One really can't get this wrong and have both scientific literacy and editorial integrity.[1] Which is it for you? Face-devil-grin.svg --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi M8, thank you for the question, your comments will always be welcome here. I hope my ping calling you here worked the other day, but if it didn't, please look at the longest thread on this page, you weren't the subject, I was the subject, but you were, how can I put this ... mentioned? I apologise for my behavioural issues, they were not just with you, but I recognise it now, and I'll try harder.
I will not answer though, but instead ask you to consider the question in regard to your own behaviour as the question goes to the heart of my issue with you. Science has examined acu, and found it lacking in worth. Editorial integrity can mean a lot of things, as can claiming to be a scientist and an acupuncturist at the same time. You cannot be both, they are mutually exclusive. regards. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 16:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Viking Canid; no, ping didn't work, and they don't seem to be working well in general. Stalking -- generally no; I missed the exchange above. Hey, thanks for apology, I appreciate that. No serious offense taken in any case, but collegiality is easier on the nerves, and I think one of WP:5P for good reason.
On your question: in my case, one becomes a little pricker at the end of the 20th century, when the evidence base (and one's understanding of EBM) was relatively meager, and attitudes relatively optimistic. In fact, Gorski remained agnostic about it until only a few years ago; Novella convinced him otherwise.
I won't argue here that views in the sci community are more heterogeneous than you suggest, though it's true enough to be said, within limits.[2][3]
So, it's not that hard to be both for historical reasons. Even so, I wouldn't suggest such a career course today, and tend to agree that a scientist embarking on such would be forced either to choose between paradigmatic forks in the road, or to compartmentalize severely, or otherwise "a-rationalize" their choice. [4] As it happens, I haven't practiced in several years due to other life stuff, s o I don't feel much cognitive dissonance, or COI. Speaking of which, my editorial integrity is surely a function of my edits (cf. Cochrane's approach with acu'ists). Happy editing! --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
P.S. So what about that Ernst source then? Do you really agree with QuackGuru on that or were you just being hasty (happens to the best of us)? As you can see, I'm trying to gloss exactly nothing.[5] It's simply WP:ENC: misrepresenting a source is stupid. QG knows better, and I'm glad that Kww and others see through his game (well, I know it's a game; others may yet see it as a CIR issue). --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Socks?[edit]

I'm curious about your comment that you removed from Talk:Phoenix Global, did you mean Tabs and Wfmu could be socks? Wfmu appeared out of nowhere right after Tabs disappeared for no evident reason (he seemed really interested in the topic, so... and all of his edits were about that article). And then a bit later Wfmu says, "Not intereted in "duking it out", certainly not with Jeraphine G who seems a little prickly further up this page," referring to the section where I took apart Tabs' comments. Hmmmmmm. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

and Alloduckie, though I didn't look at the actual content of those edits. The DUCK rules here astonish me. It seems experts are allowed to decide on the flimsiest of behavioural evidence, and then there are superbeings called checkusers, who everybody is afeared of! My meh comment was because for the amount of sockpuppetry involved, if indeed it is, is actually not too serious, compared to many other cases. Jdog and yourself are obviously capable of doing whatever needs doing. Thanks for the enquiry, always willing to help. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 16:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Jeraphine Gryphon ... um ... Are you a checkuser, perhaps? I'm too frightened to look. Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 23:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Median isn't the Message[edit]

Thought you might find this essay (PDF) of interest, if you haven't come across it already. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. I think there may be more than one essay of that name, as that message does get around, doesn't it? I haven't seen that one, so thanks very much. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Have a biscuit, Roxy.[edit]

Why?

For successfully preventing yourself from reverting somebody, and using the edit summary ... "Is that the sound of COI Ducks quacking?" Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 22:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ha. No more than two minutes. Ha. Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 22:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Are...are you talking to yourself Roxy? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It's very sad, isn't it? Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 01:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You know, the pain of an abscess and a tooth extraction really puts perspective on this wiki thing, doesn't it? -Roxy the toothless dog™ (resonate) 04:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank goodness he wasn't an ALT-Dentist!! -Roxy the toothless dog™ (resonate) 04:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
i'm sorry roxy. tooth pain sucks. bad tooth! hopefully you are out of pain now? Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The NHS did it's thing, without drama. The people who helped me deserve praise for being professional and sympathetic. I am now merely uncomfortable, and my face is lopsided still, but swelling is going down. I could run up mountains on uncomfortable ! -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── teeth are my exhibit one against intelligent design. you gotta use them, they decay like crazy when you do, and they hurt like hell when they decay. what was that designer thinking?? Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the source code it all becomes clear ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That explains a great deal, and I suspect if I understood C programming, there would be more to laugh at. Thanks both. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I wish you a swift recovery from your dental distress. bobrayner (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)