User talk:Shibbolethink

If you're here to place a D/S notice for any topic related to science, medicine, or anything that might remotely be considered a conspiracy theory, don't bother. I'm already aware. You may point to this notice if it ever comes up.

Wikibreak

The days of <radiology elective> were long and beautiful and free, and felt like they could last forever.

Unfortunately, it was not to be. And the large flat hard wall of <actual grades> and <actual effortful work> came swiftly upon him.

Peace, love, and fun where fun is duly weighted by reliable peer-reviewed sources. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Participation in a signpost interview

Hi Shibbolethink, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a contributor to WP:COVID19? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject COVID19 interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to! When's a good deadline for answering all of these? I can probably find time to work on it this weekend — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! In the next week or two is good :). Tom (LT) (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tom (LT) sorry I've been completely neglecting this :( A lot of IRL stuff happened that got in the way, and my wiki participation has been flagging. I will try and get to it this weekend, and if not then, the next. I have a big exam next wednesday that I will have a lot more time after :) (It got delayed from COVID) I hope you can still use the interview! Thanks for asking — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The mess with the cover-up article.

First of all, not trying to be a prick here. Really. I came because you do appear to have the ability to look at things from the other guy's point-of-view. Feel free to tell me to get lost. Just to put the shoe on the other foot, suppose that there were a close move discussion on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. The discussion was close, and someone came along and moved it to Alleged investigations into the origin of COVID-19 on the grounds that the WHO investigation was not really an investigation, because the investigators were denied access to raw data and the head said the conclusion was reached under Chinese pressure. Then the closer immediately AfD'd it, calling the article an embarrassment for the above reasons, regardless of how much sourcing treated the WHO study as an investigation. Suppose further that the community agreed that the latter title was not a reasonable title for a Wikipedia article.

What, in your opinion, be a reasonable remedy? Adoring nanny (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming over to chat, and I want to take your question at face value. But before I do that, I also want to start out by saying there is a fundamental difference, because no one is saying it wasn't an investigation at all. They merely disagree about how effective/thorough it was. Whereas a cover-up is a negative thing by its very nature, an investigation is a neutral term to start with. But, I still want to take your question at face value.

My answer would be that if a consensus of editors agree to the AfD, then it doesn't matter what I think about the name, even if I disagree with the outcome of the AfD or the name change, I would respect it. I might put a DRV if I think the consensus was misread, but not just if I disagreed with the outcome. If I disagreed with the reading of the rename consensus (which I actually might, in this instance), then I would put it up to Move Review. But the AfD trumps the move. If it were me, I would instead choose to work on a different more neutrally worded draft that would be more appealing to wikipedia's consensus palate, whether I agreed with that consensus or not.

I think the Move Review of the rename close is fair and completely in order. I think it's entirely justified to think the closer was a little biased in their wording. I think if I had closed it, I would have said "no consensus." That being said, I also think their close is within the realm of reasonable, enough that I wouldn't personally move review it. I also think it ultimately won't matter because the article will likely be merged/redirected, so I wouldn't have wasted my time doing the MR. It's become a move review out of spite, not out of effective wiki-making. It will help no one, and that is why it should probably be procedurally closed.

All of which to say, I think time would be better spent on making a version of this article that is closer to NPOV, and that more people can agree upon. Rather than tying up the bureaucracy in a way that will ultimately fail and make everyone more unhappy and disillusioned than when they started. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Saw on your infobox you're a Futurama fan, and this quote seemed relevant :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Lol, an excellent reference for an excellent moment. Thank you for this reminder of a great episode in a great series. That will start to re-syndicate on Adult Swim this month!!! [1] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Alas I'm over in the UK, where it's not on Netflix/Prime so I'm stuck with my DVD copies! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)

Shibbolethink,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope your holiday season goes well this year too! For my end, I will be spending the next 11 days studying for my internal medicine shelf exam, because I'm desperately trying to get a better grade in the course and I need every point I can get :)

I think both for you and for me, 2022 will be better! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor point: automatic archiving set-up

I observe when you set up automatic archiving at Special:Diff/1060939924 you set numberstart=7 when the Archive 1 existed but Archive 2 through Archive 6 did not. This caused the {{talk header}} display to display the index and archive 1, but to miss Archive 7. I consider it a good faith minor mistake, and quite frankly a sort of mistake I make quite a lot of at a frequency of once or more a week. I 'fixed' the issue yesterday by adding null pages for Archive 2 thru 6 (My initial thought had been to rename archive 7 to 2 but it might have interfered with the bot and or/its index. There have been a number of discussion irregularities in my opinion on a recent discussion and your action slightly obscured one that I may choose to take to a noticeboard at some point; however I confirm I would find it totally implausible you setting of the auto-archiving may have been for that reason (it may have plausibly been to cover some of my uncivil comments in an earlier discussion but that is a different matter). Thankyou. 03:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

Thank you!! Yes, I must have missed it when I copy pasted the settings. I’ve tried to fix all of those but I occasionally miss one. I appreciate your help. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t recognize your username? Have we been in a discussion ? Was it Covid related? Or pseudoscience type stuff? Or like academic medicine?, most recently sex vs gender? I absolutely did not do it to cover anything you said up or anything like that. The talk page was long, I added archiving I'd set up on a different page, and changed the name. Simple as that! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sort of involved where you've been discussing recently - here though we've not disucussed directly, so yes, covid related. Apologies for not signing earlier. (Lucky Covid Surivior Dec/2020(Non-hospitalized likely alpha). Lucky to be 2*Vaxzevria'd+Pfizer boosted. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

FormalDude is wishing you a Hellish Hexennacht!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Hellish Hexennacht, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Don't eat the red snow! ––FormalDude ^talk 23:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And a very hellish hexennacht to you too, FormalDude! :) Sleep tight, and don't let the midnight rituals by the dawn of a full moon bite! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hey! Whatever you celebrate, I hope you have a good one! Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And you as well, @Sideswipe9th! I'm spending my xmas eve with a glass of whiskey and 60 multiple choice practice questions on heart murmurs :) Not what I envisioned, but COVID makes fools of us all! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Oof! I'm sat in bed, editing Wikipedia when I really should be playing Breath of the Wild and filling myself full of chocolates. Alas there's people wrong on the internet and content in dispute! What is an editor to do? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Concatenating the Wikiproject Notifications

Hey. Feel free to combine/move all those notifications into one section above my reply. Just makes the flow easier for any closer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I sometimes do. They're created automatically by a plugin, but I'll combine them if it makes it easier :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm not sure your notifications to wikiprojects are beneficial for run-of-the-mill RMs. They certainly haven't been standard practice so far, except for RMs foreseen to be controversial, and they may spam Wikiproject talk pages. Wikiproject members can be notified of RMs by watching Article alerts page (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts), although I grant that not everyone is aware of that. Anyway, that's just an (not too strong) opinion of mine, perhaps someone else may chime in. No such user (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy to stop doing it! I figure the more participants in RM discussions, the fewer will need to be relisted. As it stands, nearly 100% end up relisted, which is a tragedy. And there are many many discussions with 0-2 participants. I stopped doing it with Biography articles once I saw they had an automated list. if that exists for other WPs like Plants, I will happily stop tagging those as well. I mostly do it out of boredom tbh. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, routine RMs have never attracted much attention; perhaps a compromise solution is to issue wikiproject notification only when the article is relisted (although wbm1058's RMCD bot, which already handles relists, could be programmed to do that.) I believe that almost all projects have Article Alerts system (or it can be configured). Just look at an average Article alert page - we probably wouldn't want to have all those notifications issued on Wikiproject's talk. Perhaps we should move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves? No such user (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

One issue with programming a bot to do it is that it would end up advertising at every single WP on the talk page many of which are clearly irrelevant in some cases. Such as a company that is in the US, and has a WP:United States banner. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care enough about this to continue discussing it. It just doesn't matter that much to me :)

Until there's a consensus in place I'll only notify WPs of moves which are stagnant, about to be relisted x2, etc. But you can feel free to discuss over there and I will abide by whatever consensus develops. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It also seems that many WPs alerts do not actually work as intended... For example, the alerts on Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography are all over the place, mostly closed and do not include any of the open crime moves. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No fun!

	Serious business
	Please do not make jokes or use the word 'lol' on Wikipedia. Your careful attention to this matter is appreciated. Firefangledfeathers 20:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

An inspiration to the proper and judicious running of an online encyclopedia.
Yes sir, of course. That would be far too enjoyable! We cannot have that. Your inter-office memo is duly appreciated. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

NPA warning

Please strike your comment insinuating that I discriminate against Chinese nationals. LondonIP (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What part of that comment in particular? I don't believe any part of that comment describes anything you have said. But if you tell me which part you'd like struck and why it insinuates that you discriminate, I would be happy to. I certainly don't think you've said anything to that effect, and I do not believe that you do. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And further, how is that a personal attack? Please keep Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS in mind moving forwards. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just Chinese nationals. Even Thucydides411 was careful to say Chinese scientists. LondonIP (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

struck and replaced. as I said "scientific publications published by ______" I would have thought it would be implied. But I have edited for clarity regardless. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Please don't do that again. I have no prejudice against Chinese people and I highly respect Chinese scientists working under these difficult conditions. LondonIP (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How did what I said in any way imply that you do not do those things?

"scientific journal articles published by chinese nationals" and "publications by chinese scientists" and "publications by chinese academics" are all synonymous in this context. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you know exactly how Chinese nationals differs from Chinese scientists in context of the gag-order placed on Chinese scientists publishing their COVID-19 research. LondonIP (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually do not. Could you please explain it to me so I don't use this term in the future? I was under the impression "national" meant "person from a country" so, in this context, a person from china who publishes scientific journal articles would, by default, be a "Chinese scientist." I am 100% serious, I have no idea how/why it would be problematic. Oh is it because it could imply Chinese people who are not in China? Is that what it is? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If that's the concern, then I would tell you that I think "chinese academics" has the same exact connotation. It would also include Chinese-born individuals who moved to other countries to become academics elsewhere. I would urge both you and myself to use "mainland Chinese academics" to avoid this confusion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

James my friend, I am worried that there is tag teaming going on and that you are agreeing with NOLABLEAK editors even in areas where most YESLABLEAK editors agree (like a cover-up of natural origin). You agreed with me that there is a possible cover-up of natural origin, so why did you vote to delete the page and any mention of a cover-up? This looks like tag teaming just to WP:WIN. Francesco espo (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

uhhhhh, what? I voted to redirect/merge, which was the consensus of many many editors, most of whom have never touched these articles. I'm actually quite happy with how the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article is turning out, it includes much of the cover-up article content, but in an NPOV way. I hope it continues to improve. Much like how I have been pleasantly surprised by the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. I support having articles on these things, as long as they portray A)the scientific consensus and B)the overall dispute in a proportionate and NPOV-compliant fashion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

More serious wiki-break

Hi all, I'm gonna take a more serious wiki-break. I'll respond to queries here, but will likely not involve myself in articles or talk space much, if at all. Please do not tag me into disputes.

This is for a few reasons: 1) I have COVID (got it from the hospital, where else), and am not recovering on schedule and need to relax a bit more. 2) I am taking some time off from school to recover better for a few weeks, and will be studying for my second round of board exams during that time. 3) I just do not think wiki is very good for my mental or physical well-being right now. Please understand. Good luck and good vibes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I hope your recovery speeds up and that your studies go well. Happy to hear you're taking a well-deserved break, though I wish it were under better circumstances. Hope the joy of the project comes back to you soon. Firefangledfeathers 03:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Have a speedy recovery, mate! TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope you have a nice, relaxed recovery. I currently have COVID too but since it's mild it's basically an excuse for me to introvert for 10 days. Good luck with the board exams as well. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish you a speedy recovery. And thanks for the feedback. Good luck on your exams. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the very kind words

I did get a whole lot better, and now I have quadruple the antibodies, some might say! But, I will probably still be using wiki less than in the past... Just not zero :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I saw this late, but am glad that you've recovered, —PaleoNeonate – 04:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nestorian rebellion on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It really is a thing

Hi Shibbolethink! I'm kind of disappointed that in your statement in the current Arbcom case request, you refer to the 'thing' about skepticism on Wikipedia as a witch hunt in search of a witch. At least two editors in the case request have explicitly objected to this kind of rhetoric. Is it really needed to make your point? Do you really believe that all of those who see a problem are deluding themselves like that?

Also, when you say that the broader skepticism issues, however, in many many cases, boil down to fundamental disagreements about WP:FRINGE as a PAG, I think you're failing to acknowledge that in many cases too, it is not about a disagreement over WP:FRINGE, but over WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:DUE, and perhaps especially, WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

There are some people who edit here not to build an encyclopedia, but to try and make the public more aware about quackery and pseudoscience. But there is a large gap between keeping fringe stuff out of encyclopedic articles, a very noble endeavor and much of what you're doing here if I perceive well, and keeping encyclopedic stuff out of anti-fringe articles, which is what a lot of 'skeptic' editors here are doing. They want articles to make clear that a topic is fringe, and that's it. Any formulation which does not 100% comply with that goal must be kept out. Any kind of historical context is taboo. A trick! Anything that does not paint the subject in an absolutely negative light is misleading, and dangerous.

And of course, any editor who disagrees is pro-fringe.

This is not doing the encyclopedia any good. I guess that from the point of view of someone who is fighting off true pro-fringe editors every day, it is hard to perceive that such a problem would exist. But it does. I guess that it's easier to perceive from the point of view of a historian of philosophy and science, like me. Is it a worse problem than the perennial threat of fringe ideas infiltrating Wikipedia? Not at all! But it still is a 'thing'. I'm not imagining it will be solved anytime soon, but a first step would be if more editors would recognize that there really is a problem, or at least the possibility that there may be a problem. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I just thought it was a kind of funny way to use that quote from Firefangledfeathers which I thought was pithy. I will happily change it to a McCarthyism reference if you like.

I think with regards to your other points here, I would urge you to read my statement again. I reference DUE and encyclopedic interpretation vs POV interpretation. I make a nearly identical argument to the one you are making, in my perception... I absolutely agree with you wrt issues re: mistargeting of anti-fringe editing etc. I think appropriately contextualized historical content is lacking in a lot of these articles. I think sometimes that stuff is removed for the wrong reasons. I believe I made that exact argument in my statement.

I just don't think it merits an ArbCom case, it seems that may be where we disagree. I think better application of current policies is typically not ArbCom's purview. They are better at clarifying ambiguity in how a current PAG is interpreted. If there are specific ways that lots of people are misinterpreting FRINGE, DUE, etc. then that would be an ArbCom matter. But my view is rather that lots of people just straight up aren't reading these things. Or don't care about them if they do. Not that they are having good faith misinterpretations. The role of ArbCom is not to overrule the community, it is to clarify points of contention which the community struggles with.

The issues that you and others have described should be handled by threads at WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. Removal of high quality sources at WP:RS etc.. I know some threads have been brought there and failed to make any useful change. I would say, that, overall, the problem is that we are currently having such a huge pseudoscientific renaissance in America and England right now, really all over the globe, that many good faith edits appear to some as trojan horses or POVFORKs. I think historical perspectives are warranted, I think philosophical ones are valuable. But I don't think that should overrule having mainstream views depicted appropriately... It's so case-by-case, and in line with FRINGE... I don't think a huge view of this issue is even possible. each individual article where this happens has different problems... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say the McCarthy reference is better because communists actually existed. There really were Russian spies infiltrating America, but they weren't the people McCarthy was labelling as a threat. Russian spies wouldn't be caught dead at a communist rally. They looked a lot more like McCarthy than his enemies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Coming here as someone who's found your opinions to often be well-measured in previous discussions (and as someone who is taking offense at being compared to McCarthyism, Nazis, etc.), I'd just comment that those kinds of easy comparisons remove a lot of the nuance from the discussion. When one starts talking about Russian spies in a conversation about wiki guidelines I think it probably indicates the issue has gained an unhelpful narrative of its own. PS: the firefangledfeathers quote will forever be one of my favorite replies I've ever read. Cheers. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair. I don't think you're Joseph McCarthy or a Nazi. I'll try and think of a better sentence, that will probably be less pithy, but also less offensive. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm really glad to see that you agree with some of the stuff I've mentioned. I also agree with almost all of what you're saying here. I guess I'm just not seeing this in your ARC statement, which is perhaps a bit ambiguous. In that vein, please consider that your comment about McCarthyism may not come over as intended (now I am having trouble seeing who you think are the McCarthyists and who are the not-really-communist communists: are it the 'skeptics' seeing pro-fringe editors where there aren't any, or the 'concern-trolling editors' seeing overly zealous anti-fringe editors where there aren't any?), and especially that it may push some buttons better left unpushed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess in this ill-fitting analogy I would say that you guys are the McCarthyites and the anti-fringe users are the non-russian-spy communists. And the russian spies are pro-fringe POV-pushers. In this analogy, as in real life, all 3 groups really exist! So anti-fringe users perceive the POV-pushers as similar to McCarthy-ites, because in some ways the goals are coincidentally sometimes aligned, but also anti-fringe users often erroneously perceive McCarthy-ites as pro-fringe and fail to see that there is good faith there. Similarly to how McCarthy probably really did think he was doing the right thing. And so the endless cycle continues.

I don't think you two are Joseph McCarthy, I think you are often actually right, and there really is an issue with how this has often worked in skeptical articles. But I also think sometimes the arguments that this is brought up as are just ill-formed. like that current RS thread. A lot of the examples of how SI sources are used there are just straight up uncontroversial, and per WP:PAG probably don't need a source at all. or can use a non-RS.

I would say i am more often perplexed by why things are removed rather than why they are added. I'm a deletionist at heart, but even I see that skeptics (myself included) often remove fringe things that are notable and just need to be recontextualized. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What about us editors who don't care about GSoW, but do care about overzealous NPOV editing leading to BLP violations and wildly unbalanced articles? I still maintain this whole GSoW thing is a red herring. Trying to chase down secret off-wiki collaborations is an enormous waste of time, and will only cause more friction. Just deal with bad editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Then I would say, bring it to the right noticeboards with the best possible most indefensible argument for your position. A place where a controversial fact about a BLP is sourced to a clearly POV SI column that likely wasn't fact checked. That will get you traction. It likely won't lead to the entire source being blacklisted or thought of as SPS or w/e. But it will show that such problems really exist. I feel as though whenever I trace down the examples I'm provided with, I only see extremely uncontroversial statements or clear facts sourced to these SI articles... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

See, that's the problem I think arbcom should focus on fixing. Any type of movement in that direction heads directly to a shit show. Rp2006 was performing COI edits, and they're was a thread on it, and it devolved into the wiki equivalent of norovirus spreading on a cruise ship. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom will easily tackle the GSOW thing because it's all about interpreting the COI guideline. They're good at that. It won't get messy because they don't really care about the content at that point, it's all about the editor relationships and actions. It literally could be about drain-pipes and a Guerilla Plumbers on Wikipedia group to them. Granted, those plumbers make a lot of really great articles about different types of sinks and toilets or w/e. They'll consider that too.

Anyway, I would say the issue with the broader skepticism conversation is that it is so gosh darned diffuse. Each article has its own little microcosm of issues with POV. Some articles are too pro-fringe, some are too anti-fringe in how they are written. Some have COI issues, some have sourcing issues. It's an under-trafficked area with lots of tiny little minutiae articles which have difficulty finding good sourcing. We probably need to AfD more often. We probably need to have fewer opinions and more facts.

But how would ArbCom help with that? In a concrete way, what would they actually do? Issue Discretionary Sanctions right? What would those DS say, in your perfect outcome? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've mentioned before, on one of the legion threads in the past few months, that providing reasonable evidence of undisclosed COI editing should get a topic ban. This would come in handy, as GeneralNotability recorded they weren't confident using the existing pseudoscience D's for that. Aside from that, escalating lengths of topic bans or page blocks for battleground behavior. My first interaction with Rp2006 was them calling me a fringe supporter and saying I was at war with GSoW. This was for removing an obvious and severe blp violation from Thomas John (medium). From then on they treated me as their enemy. Another example of that is the page A. C. Santacruz tried to edit (which I don't recall right now, I'm sure she can remind me) only to be met with bad faith refers, insults and refusal to discuss. That forced her to make a bunch of RFCs that the same group is unhappy about, but she's more or less getting consensus for her edit, one piece at a time. The reverts are also what led to the Rp2006 COI fiasco. If there were good faith engagement from the beginning, instead of battleground conduct, this whole fracas could have been avoided.

Tldr: Topic bans for evidence of undeclared COI editing. Escalating lengths of narrow topic bans and page blocks for battleground behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you know of any Discretionary Sanction regimes for other topics which have such detailed and defined punishments? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there have been arbcom cases that have had highly tailored sanctions, but you asked what my perfect outcome would be. Using page blocks and narrow topic bans allows them to generally keep editing in a topic area. Regular DS is fine, if there are some principals about battleground conduct, AGF and civility/PAs. Even a clarification that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience applies to skeptical editing as well would at least let people go before AE instead of ANI/AN/ANother notice board, where there might be slightly less drama, and rampant incivility may be seen and addressed.

I also don't think that Topic bans for evidence of undeclared COI editing. Escalating lengths of narrow topic bans and page blocks for battleground behavior is so highly detailed that people would be getting caught in the weeds trying to deal with it. If it's focused on GSoW, and the Pseudoscience DS doesn't explicitly cover skepticism then there's no way to address things like this without dealing with drama boards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree the content issue is something I don't expect arbcom solving. The never-ending issue of local vs. global consensus will continue to affect this project for a long while. I had some ideas in the COIN thread of ways to improve the articles systematically but it didn't pick up much traction, but I'll see what I can do about that after the arbcom case. I find myself very much caught in the middle of extreme anti-fringe and extreme pro-fringe where either side sees me as too radical. I'm very hopeful though that the topic can improve if some good initiatives and systems are put in place without any need for DS. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

yes, some might say that is how you know you are NPOV!! But I would humbly suggest that it might mean you just need to reframe your argument! such that instead of considering you too extreme on both sides, neither side can figure out which side you're on, but they like what you're saying. Easier said than done, I know lol — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh I'm definitely biased, but I guess just not aligned to a particular ideology? I very much like the phrase "strong opinions weakly held" to describe my positions on things. I think my biggest issue now is just needing to get more fluent in both the history and jargon of wiki discussions so I am more convincing. I know I certainly provoke a lot of resistance because of my impatient and awkward behaviour. The learning curve is a total pleasure, at least ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

1RR

I am not going to use the damn template, and I'm certainly not headed for a drama board at this point. But this[2] was your third series of edits at COVID-19 lab leak theory, and more than one series was arguably a revert. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, and will keep it in mind. but as far as I can tell the only revert was the most recent about moving the sentence about scientists around. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Also worth saying, as far as I know, that article is not subject to any 1 revert restrictions. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Waldorf

You too eh? Waldorf was my first (only?) "run-in" with the Wikipedia authorities.[3] It is one of the few areas where I shrugged and resigned myself to Wikipedia being crap, and best left like that. I told myself i was imagining things about there being a protectorate in operation. I did however, manage to wrestle anthroposophic medicine into shape - editors (probably rightly) care more about health misinformation so consensus was easier to achieve there. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta, NBC News/MSNBC COVID-19/Medical Analyst (hoping for review)

Hello, Sir,

In reading your background, I thought you might be willing/interested in reviewing this AfC for pulmonologist Dr. Vin Gupta, who's been a visible medical analyst for national news outlets (mainly NBC) since the beginning of the pandemic.

For viewers of these channels, it'd be helpful to know further details about his background, since he's always on air. I've received significant feedback over the last 3 months on this AfC but am hopeful you might be willing to weigh in if you have time.

Thank you in advance,

CG

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Gupta_(pulmonologist)