User talk:MastCell/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Arbitrary arbitration with no accountability?

I'm beginning to think that there is an even more fundamental flaw in the so-called dispute resolution mechanism here on Wikipedia than I expressed earlier.
The main point of interest I have is whether or not there is a review mechanism--other than an appeal to Jim Wales--regarding arbitration proceedings.
Is it perhaps unreasonable to demand such a review mechanism. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no review mechanism for ArbCom decisions. If you disagree with them, you have no recourse, other than waiting for a change in the composition of the Committe. At least that's been my experience.

The only time I can remember the Committee correcting an erroneously decided case was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman. And that case—an obvious travesty—wasn't corrected until 1.5 years had passed and the Committee's membership had undergone nearly a wholesale turnover. I've complained vocally about other decisions I considered badly misguided, for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. It doesn't accomplish anything other than making the Arbs pissed off at you. They might reconsider in a year or so when the dust has settled, but not now.

Last year I got so fed up with the conduct of a specific Arbitrator that I decided I didn't want to work on the project as long as he remained on the Committee. So I just stopped editing. Then, after he was removed in the 2012 election, I felt optimistic enough to start again. Those are pretty much your options.

Frankly, I'd suggest letting it go. Do something else for awhile. Being topic-banned from Tea-Party-related articles is a favor, not a punishment. Those articles are magnets for the worst editors (and worst editorial tendencies) on the project. When it comes to ArbCom, the best you can hope for is that you argue your case clearly. You can't change the result; all you can do is decide whether you still want to contribute to the project under the terms they've imposed, and vote in the next election. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Didn't they correct themselves on the WMC-Cortonin case? Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Here: imposed and reversed. Shaving three days off the ban! Guettarda (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

But just to clarify - listen to MastCell. Nothing good comes from appealing arbcomm rulings. It's really hard to see the light of day from within a case, but the best thing you can do is prove them wrong, contribute constructively, work well with people you disagree with, and wait six months. There are several people on that list who I'm pretty sure won't be able to earn a reprieve in six months. From what I've seen of your editing Ubikwit, you probably could. Just stay out of fights and work on constructive collaborations. Stay away from controversial articles - for the most part, they'll sort themselves out eventually. (One of the main reasons the arbcomm goes for these 'pox on both your houses' rulings is that they work. If you clear out all the current warriors - who, often, have gone beyond content disputes into seriously not liking each other - then peace is very likely to come to the article. That creates room in which a decent result can be hammered out - or at least, it keeps the problem quiet enough that the rest of the community isn't bothered.) Guettarda (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion request

Hi there MastCell, I am requesting outside opinion for the Asaram Bapu article. The talk page section in question is "Edit warring on the "potency test". I have read Wikipedia:Canvassing to be certain that I am within WP policy guidelines, and it is my understanding that my request is not considered canvassing, but if I'm wrong just let me know. I left the following edit on the article talk page:

I believe that the arguments offered here have not shown reasonable rational for inclusion of a few early reports that stated that the girl's hymen was intact, while refusing to allow very widely reported information regarding the fact that, contrary to to a statement that he was impotent, a test has confirmed his potency. Since it appears that the editors here believe that they have offered adequate argument and are reverting any attempts to add any mention of the potency test, I wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics. User:Binksternet has done a lot of work with women's issues, User:MastCell has medical-related knowledge, and User:Roscelese has worked on rape-related articles. I will place an invitation to comment on their talk pages. Of course, other editors are welcome to ask for other opinions as well.

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm not sure I want to get involved. This case has all the makings of a typical wiki-disaster, and frankly I don't have much confidence in my fellow editors to handle high-profile rape allegations against a polarizing figure in a sensitive and diligent manner.

I guess I'll say a few things in the relative privacy of my talkpage, though. I think the focus on the "medical" aspects of the case is misplaced on both sides. First of all, the notion that an intact hymen precludes sexual assault is medieval and, one would hope, not an actual part of the legal process in India or anywhere else. Leaving aside the obvious reality that rape need not involve vaginal penetration, it's clear that even in cases where penetrative sexual assault has taken place, the hymen often remains intact (see, for example, Pediatrics 2009). So from a medical perspective, there's no reason to mention the issue as it has no bearing on whether or not a rape took place. One wonders why this detail made the pages of a purportedly reputable source in the first place.

Likewise, it's a bit questionable whether erectile function can be medically "proven". Without knowledge of the tests performed in this case, it's a bit hard to speculate, but most commonly a nocturnal penile tumescence test is used to determine whether erectile dysfunction is organic as opposed to psychological. However, an NPT test depends on a cooperative subject, and I've never heard of its use in a sexual-assault case to "prove" potency. I'm not aware of any test that can "prove" potency in a criminal situation with an unwilling participant. Again, I think this detail is best omitted, unless the defense case revolves around a claim of impotence.

I hope that's helpful, and good luck; it's always nice to see your name around Wikipedia and I hope you and yours are well. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed and intelligent response. Some time ago an editor asked me for help and I simply said that considering the group of editors that s/he was up against, I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out than get involved.

Regarding the "medical tests", it is for good reason that India has been called the most backward country in the modern world when it comes to women's rights. In India, rape is the easy part compared to what a woman and her family go through if the rape is reported. Suicides, murders and forced marriages are not uncommon. Consequently very few are reported, but of the thousands that are almost none result in prosecution. Prior to the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, India was commonly using the "two finger test", but that case was so horrific and well-publicized that India did make sweeping changes in the definition of rape--but real change does not come overnight and who knows how much actual change has really come about. Regarding the so called "potency test", it was widely reported in all the Indian papers and described in detail. I'll find the details if you are curious. If I remember correctly, this 72-year old man did surprise the doctors when he responded to only physical stimulation. :-)

Thanks for your best wishes, but I have really had a terrible summer. It started in the spring when I again returned to serious gardening when I expected that as the weeks went by and I became more active my joints would not be so sore. When they didn't get much better I thought it was just a sign of age. But the worst thing was feeling so fatigued all the time. Each day I'd plan to get a lot of gardening done and just never had enough energy to do much. Then a couple of weeks ago I thought of the dozens of tick bites I've had over the last few years and asked for a Lyme disease test, which turned out positive. I'm pretty sure that I got it last year, if not before. I'm having a few neuro symptoms, pins and needles, here and there... I'm on doxycycline, but from what I've read the symptoms may last for a long time--hopefully not forever? Do you have any info?

I've talked to you about my sister Judy who has MM. It's been four years now. We went to Mayo for a second stem cell transplant about a year ago. She is still up and about and doing OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs)

I'm really sorry to hear about your difficulties. I know very little about late manifestations of Lyme disease, but I will say that you should be careful - there is quite a bit of misinformation and outright quackery out there when it comes to Lyme disease, partly because there are some real unanswered questions about its late manifestations. Just be sure that you're getting information from a source you trust. I don't diagnose or treat Lyme disease and have no relevant expertise or experience, but I will say that the peripheral neuropathy (pins-and-needles) are potentially a manifestation of Lyme, and my understanding is that neurologic manifestations of Lyma are typically treated with IV antibiotics (e.g. ceftriaxone) rather than oral doxycycline... but I don't want to second-guess the treatment you've gotten, because as I said I have no relevant expertise or experience and at the end of the day (going back to my point about trustworthy sources), I'm just an anonymous Wikipedian. :)

I'm glad your sister is doing OK. Myeloma is such an unpredictable disease, but things are hugely better than they used to be 5-10 years ago, with the advent of a lot of new treatments. In fact, new treatments for myeloma have come along so rapidly that they've outpaced clinical trials, and no one is completely sure of the optimal way to use them. Obviously she's in good hands at Mayo. The transplant process can be tough, especially the second time around, but I'm glad she's bounced back well. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Precious

"hope—the most important thing in life"
Thank you, master of edit summaries, for quality contributions to articles on medicine, for advice on arbitrary arbitration, your compliments, for placing "hope—the most important thing in life" on top, but not without The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 February 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - that's very kind of you, and much appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nathan

This briefly blocked user recently requested permission to edit via a VPN, which I declined and you accepted. He lives in Vermont, USA according to his userbox, and I was unable to fathom the reason for his request; he stated in his request it was to increase his security. Obviously I will not argue the point or indeed input any further into this case, but I would be interested to know why you felt that my action was not appropriate. He demonstrated the ability, while the VPN was blocked, to edit directly here, and unless Vermont has been translocated to the Peoples' Republic of China or North Korea I see no reason why he needs the additional security that a VPN possibly affords. I am probably missing something, but would be grateful for enlightenment as to what this may be?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nathan (talk · contribs) has been around for a long time, and has an excellent record as an editor. He's never been blocked. I'm very confident that he's not going to abuse the IP block exemption. (If for some reason he does, then I'll take partial responsibility). When an established editor in good standing with no history of misconduct requests IP-block-exemption, then I think the default should be to grant the request. His rationale - that he prefers to use a VPN to access the Internet from home - sounds entirely plausible to me, and I guess I feel it's not my place to skeptically deconstruct his explanation. Presumably his 5+ years and 10,000+ constructive edits here warrant some level of trust. My general feeling is that we should make it easy for good editors to edit here, rather than make it harder. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I had, and have, no reason to suspect him of planning any form of abuse, and concede his unblemished record. I felt that his rationale was questionable, but hey, such is life!. (I did feel that the criticism expressed in your posting to him was slightly hurtful, but no matter.) --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I apologize for my tone. I mean, I really apologize, not the usual passive-aggressive Wikipedian "apology". I shouldn't have expressed myself as harshly as I did. I suppose I've gotten a bit burnt-out here, but that's no reason to snap at you. Although our paths haven't crossed much that I can recall, I've got a generally positive impression of your work and I should have been kinder and less hurtful. I appreciate you letting me know that my tone was inappropriate, and I'll try to take that on board going forward. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't feel that I was moaning at you; we all have bad days sometimes, me as much as anyone. All friends here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is unacceptable. An official Wikipedia apology is supposed to follow the standard form "I'm sorry that your [insert your opponent's weakness here] has caused you to take offense at my harmless comment." This looks suspiciously like an actual apology, which as you know is forbidden by policy. Even worse, this appears to be an actual acceptance of an apology, with no lingering grudge registered, which is also severely frowned on. As admins, you're both expected to conform with site best practices. I'm disappointed in both of you. Please begin bickering immediately. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • :-) I was most offended to read "to take that on board going forward". Have you been on a management course recently? Taking Floquenbeam's comment, though, I'll have to consider that my weak British genes mean any offence is entirely my fault and go read WP:NOTCENSORED as self-punishment. Colin°^Talk 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    • No, I sentence you to three weeks of participation at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, which would be enough to turn even Candide into a cynic about human nature. As far as management-speak, what can I say? In the past few weeks, I've had a lot more contact than usual with the corporate side of my employer. You know, dialoguing, promoting synergy, identifying our organizational North Star, working on lean production methods so we can be more like Toyota (and who doesn't want their medical care handled like an automobile assembly line?)... so I guess I've been infected going forward. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to chime in - there are a bunch of different reasons to edit from behind a VPN and/or use other methods to increase the security of ones Internet traffic. I've been doing it for awhile, but you might see a surge (relatively speaking) in IPBE requests related to people taking security steps in a post-Snowden world. It also adds some protection for information that should remain secure, reduces the visibility of your identity to marketers and others who would like to use your Web activity for business purposes, and defeats some attempts by ISPs to filter traffic based on type (i.e. preserves a degree of net neutrality).

I think it might make sense to become a little more liberal in the criteria for granting the exemption, and I've always found it a little distasteful that we interrogate those requesting it and then make an inexpert judgment about whether they "really need it." It's invasive, carries the potential for placing the requester at risk, and relies on administrators to draw conclusions about circumstances despite the typical absence of any relevant knowledge or expertise. My geographic location, for instance, provides little information about my particular situation or whether I would have a legitimate interest in the security provided by my VPN... yet Anthony points it out as though it were definitive proof that I couldn't possibly have one. I suppose my response to his decline was a little snippy too, but he ought to admit that his rejection was curt and not particularly thoughtful or courteous. Calling it silly is a pretty mild form of reproof. Nathan ^T 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nathan, please note that you were not interrogated by anyone about your need to edit through a VPN. I am sorry if you felt that my rejection was curt. The dialogue above was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, and Mastcell and I are not in any sense confrontational. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You said yourself that you declined it because you couldn't see why I might need to use a VPN. That implies that it was on me to justify that to you. The policy, by the by, makes clear that administrators are supposed to determine the circumstances and justification for granting an IPBE in this circumstance. And don't worry, I'm not taking the dialogue about apologies seriously - and most of it was posted after my comment came in, fwiw ;) Nathan ^T 21:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This could get silly if we are not careful. Are you saying that you think I should have interrogated you about your need for a VPN? Because I did not and do not feel that I should do so. Can we close this discussion here?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Userbox request

Dear MastCell - I am an admirer of the presentation and in strong agreement with the sentiment expressed in your WP:CIV userbox. May I have one on my page? Ta, Plutonium27 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course! They're public domain, but it's very... civil of you to ask first. :) You just need to transclude {{User:MastCell/UBX-CIV}}. Enjoy. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User: Rangoon11

Hey, I noticed you were the editor who put an indefinite block on User:Rangoon11. I was wondering if this editor has had issues that you know of with continuing to sock after this indefinite block was put in place. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue came up recently here. I haven't followed Rangoon11 since the block, so can't really comment on whether there have been additional issues. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I seem to have come up in an edit war against his socks so I was just curious, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

controversy about vitamin c

I am unable to edit on pages related to the topic of my concern, as a result of discretionary sanctions, so as a last ditch effort, I thought I'd appeal to you, an active editor on the orthomolecular medicine topic, and present my case. What you decide to do with it is your business. These are my concerns:

The fact that some people dropped out of the study means that it is not very helpful to make conclusions about them in the study (e.g. - you state that the stabilization rate in the Monti study was 50% - this includes the people who dropped out. However, if we include the people who actually completed the study, 7/9, or 77% had stabilization - higher than the 60% average of treatment with the traditional drug alone). Also, your statement about the nature of the stabilization (purporting 0% regression) can be challenged by figure 3 of the trial: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029794.g003/originalimage, showing that there was regression, but regression lower than the required standards of RECIST criteria for it to be reported as such. Partial response criteria is at least 30%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_Evaluation_Criteria_in_Solid_Tumors#Response_Criteria, so your statement about ascorbate lowering efficacy seems unwarranted, as gemcitabine/erlotinib do not qualify as drugs evoking partial response, according to the study you gave.

There are some other interesting observations from the study that are noteworthy: "Overall, the safety data do not reveal adverse events other than what might be expected for progression of pancreatic cancer and/or treatment with gemcitabine and erlotinib. Deaths of three patients who died before completing the study were attributable to underlying and rapidly advancing disease, as affirmed by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board. [...] primary tumor size ... specifically decreased in the three subjects who received the highest ascorbic acid dose. [...] It is noted that RECIST 1.0 criteria for stable disease are inclusive of a 19% increase in target lesions [24]. Other studies of gemcitabine efficacy in pancreatic cancer that categorize disease as stable do not provide details concerning target lesion increases under 20%, meaning that subjects with target lesion size increases up to 19% are still considered stable disease. Therefore, the importance of our finding of target size decrease in 8 of 9 subjects may be underestimated. [...] In particular, unlike many cancer therapies, ascorbate does not appear to have toxicity on rapidly dividing normal cells such as those in intestine cells, hair follicle cells, and bone marrow. Because of the absence of apparent tissue toxicity, effects of ascorbic acid treatment on human tumors might be expected to be more gradual, and as a corollary to require longer treatment. This possibility is consistent with observations from case reports of patients who received intravenous ascorbic acid as treatment for several types of cancers. [...] Given the possibility that longer ascorbic acid treatment is necessary to see disease improvement by RECIST 1.0 criteria, and the somewhat encouraging findings in the nine subjects in this trial, studying a longer treatment period at the 100 gram dosage seems warranted."

Animal studies also support synergy, like this one, which concludes that "Gemcitabine-ascorbate combinations administered to mice bearing pancreatic tumor xenografts consistently enhanced inhibition of growth compared to gemcitabine alone, produced 50% growth inhibition in a tumor type not responsive to gemcitabine, and demonstrated a gemcitabine dose-sparing effect. These data support the testing of pharmacologic ascorbate in adjunctive treatments for cancers prone to high failure rates with conventional therapeutic regimens, such as pancreatic cancer." (emphasis added): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21402145

There is a view that ascorbate interferes with chemotherapy. The source for this review is very problematic. As one response to it noted, "On the basis of cell and animal experiments with dehydroascorbic acid, Heaney and colleagues state, "These results suggest that supplementary vitamin C may have adverse consequences in patients receiving cancer therapy". Selectively referring to dehydroascorbic acid as vitamin C throughout the majority of this work may send a clouded message to patients and their caregivers. All known actions of vitamin C are mediated by the reduced molecule ascorbate, not the oxidized molecule dehydroascorbic acid. Mice lacking the tissue transport protein specific for ascorbate (Slc23a2) do not survive because of severe vitamin C deficiency, despite having no impairments in dehydroascorbic acid transport.": http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/69/22/8830.1.long

A review I highlighted a while ago also noted, "Dehydroascorbic acid was termed as and was used interchangeably with vitamin C, which is incorrect and misleading (79, 80). Such misnomers can muddy the underlying science, and as a consequence of the Internet, may result in confusion among patients and caregivers.": http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78.full

Anyway, this view is refuted with this systematic review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367938

And particularly with ascorbate administered at high doses intravenously to subjects with cancer, there are differences in pharmacology. See the study "Pharmacologic doses of ascorbate act as a prooxidant and decrease growth of aggressive tumor xenografts in mice": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516281/ - the pharmacology of this discrepancy (given the different physiological environment) is explored here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304419X12000509

Recall again this article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16157892?dopt=Abstract), showing how ascorbate at very high levels can act as prodrug to deliver a significant flux of H2O2 to selectively kill cancer cells, and also the fact that "ascorbate does not appear to have toxicity on rapidly dividing normal cells", quoted in the above trial. Ascorbate has different action in different environments. As an aside, for most people, high dose iv vitamin c is safe. As this review concludes, "Other than the known complications of IV vitamin C in those with renal impairment or glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, high dose intravenous vitamin C appears to be remarkably safe.": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628650

As far as synergy is concerned, another trial also shows some efficacy for ascorbate treatment, as admitted in the conclusion: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00280-013-2070-8

I will admit bias, as I was witness to my mother's suffering with chemotherapy, but at the same time acknowledge that there is a dearth of data on viable alternatives to standard treatments. Because of this, I gained some interest in complementary (and, as we now know, in some cases, synergistic) treatments like ascorbate, after the period of her treatment, so that others would not suffer as much. It is thus important to note that there are 2 studies showing improved quality of life, that show that while it does not have value as an alternative treatment, it does have value as a complementary treatment. One of these is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6811475, and also there is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021693, which concludes, "Complementary treatment of breast cancer patients with i.v. vitamin C was shown to be a well tolerated optimization of standard tumour-destructive therapies, reducing quality of life-related side-effects."

I was banned from editing the article per WP:ARBPS (there was a premise that I was "edit warring", I do not feel that the data from the history supports that - see the history of the article edits - I made just one edit before I was reported, and reverted one edit after I was reported because I feel that the "edit warring" pretext was illegitimate, since it was used to revert my article, and I only made one edit). I feel that the fact of reconsideration being pushed in mainstream journals: http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78, http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long - means that the WP:ARBPS policies do not apply in this case. My initial concern was to accurately reflect the reviews (which are not accurately reflected in the article at this time).

Phase I trials are discouraged under WP:MEDRS, so I don't think it is appropriate to put them in, whether they be positive or negative. I think a better edit (and you or another user would have to put it in), in light of this information and the discussion on the talk page, keeping everything simple, would be (I am using pseudo-wikipedia code here - the reasons the reviews suggest reevaluation are pharmacokinetics, case series, animal studies, and other pharmacological observations):

"Some research groups have recently suggested that the use of ascorbate in cancer treatment be reevaluated.( http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78 )( http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long ). A retrospective, multicenter, epidemiological cohort study showed that complementary treatment of cancer patients receiving traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy with intravenous vitamin c improved quality of life.( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021693 )"198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to MastCell for butting in (and feel free to delete this comment if desired) but I have just one question: why is it so important to you that this be reflected in the article? Cancer doctors are unlikely to drop into the orthomolecular medicine page on Wikipedia to figure this out. Nor is the NIH going to be coming here to determine what they should fund. In any case, the relationship to orthomolecular medicine is a bit tangental at this point since synergy wasn't really the argument as far as I'm aware. Vitamin_C_megadosage#Cancer has a pretty recent and fair summary. II | (t - c) 03:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The anti-wikiproject "wikiproject" that is focused on a core tenet of the encyclopedia

It has begun. This is your official invitation. Would you like to sign up? I think you'll find the talk page comment interesting. Feel free to comment/join. Would you recommend anyone? I will follow up with an email. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I think your input would be valuable at Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy if you have the time and desire. alanyst 19:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

OPV-HIV pusher

Do you think Harold88 is

this guy?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
18:22, 14 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 2a01:e35:2ee8:5110:d501:c547:822a:b01a (talk · contribs) adds an unsourced theory. Undone by User:TechBear. 07:04, 15 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS Offspring dude01 (talk · contribs) adds the unsourced theory back. Undone by User:Anthonyhcole requesting WP:RS. 09:03, 15 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 2a01:e35:2ee8:5110:a524:7bab:5bb2:cb49 (talk · contribs) adds the theory back with poor sources. Undone by Anthonyhcole, requesting a better source 09:36, 15 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 2a01:e35:2ee8:5110:a524:7bab:5bb2:cb49 restores the theory with a good source (Lancet). Undone by User:Lesion with a request to discuss on talk 14:56, 15 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 2a01:e35:2ee8:5110:a524:7bab:5bb2:cb49 undoes Lesion 16:50, 15 October 2013 Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories 2a01:e35:2ee8:5110:a524:7bab:5bb2:cb49 deletes the theory and the immaculately sourced scientific refutation 10:30, 15 October 2013 Talk:History of HIV/AIDS Discussion 17:48-18:05, 15 October 2013 2a01:e35:2ee8:5110:a524:7bab:5bb2:cb49 vandalises 3 articles and is blocked for 31 hours. 04:05, 16 October 2013‎ History of HIV/AIDS Anthonyhcole rewrites theory with more sources and moves into a pre-existing section per talk page discussion 08:21, 16 October 2013 OPV AIDS hypothesis 84.14.169.30 (talk · contribs) removes the immaculately-sourced scientific refutation and a report that the theory may have contributed to the drop in vaccination and rise in polio rates in Nigeria. 11:10, 16 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 84.14.169.30 puts the theory into its own section, despite Lesion & Anthonyhcole agreeing on talk that it should be in a pre-existing section. Reverted by Lesion. 11:49, 16 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 84.14.169.30 reverts Lesion, reverted by Lesion. 12:04, 16 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 84.14.169.30 reverts Lesion, reverted by IseCreemV (talk · contribs) 12:24, 16 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 84.14.169.30 reverts IseCreemV 12:27, 16 October 2013 History of HIV/AIDS 84.14.169.30 deletes very well sourced assertion that another theory is the most plausible. Lesion reverts this and the previous edit. 16:33, 16 October 2013‎ History of HIV/AIDS User:Mark Arsten semi-protects

I'm going to bed now. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably most, if not all, of those are him. There just aren't too many people who obsess over that particular belief. The contribs are a good match, and Harald88 does tend to go on about how the French Wikipedia is more sympathetic to the subject than we are, so the geolocation data makes sense. Not sure it's worth doing much about - he's already well over my WP:SHUN threshold. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mutual acquaintances

Hello, it's a small fringe world after all. We happen to be connected through this person and this person. The former is currently violating his/her topic ban again and is largely responsible for the current full protection on the Rupert Sheldrake page. No AE action is taken yet so feel free to join in (or not).

Regarding the latter, it is somewhat amazing that this happened and then this happened. In particular this is shocking, wherein lame excuses are proffered with no remorse, e.g. "basically people I have introduced to editing". I would never have checked into any of this were it not for this user's completely weird behavior. I'm not asking you to do anything here; just expressing general surprise and expectations of high conflict. vzaak (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well this person began canvassing, so conflict is here. I wrote up a behavior-related ANI but was told that WP:RFC/U was the proper place. However it's unclear that the requirements for RFC/U are fulfilled. Is WP:AE an appropriate place for pseudoscience-related topics generally, or does the user have to be sanctioned before going to AE? vzaak (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely remember the Lou Sander sockpuppet investigation. As I recall, I had a strong sense that something very fishy was going on there, and I think we're not being leveled with, then or now. But whatever. As to the Sheldrake situation, I'm avoiding it, for reasons given toward the top of this list. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Pharma companies exempt from Bright Line Rule?

Many thanks for your comments about my contributions on this thread on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I'm still active, although, not so often as before. My open letter to pharma companies was meant to initiate discussions with them. My point was that they choose somebody from their company to reveal all conflicts of interests on his/her Wikipedia page and only suggest contributions to entries about their own products. This way we could transparently monitor their activities but they could ask our community to help with their entries. NCurse _work 13:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I figured you meant something along those lines, and it bothered me a little to see people going off without actually stopping to think or talk to you directly. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

edits

I reverted the edits made in defiance of the tea party ban; since your responses would not have made sense without them, I removed the whole section. [1]NE Ent 01:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, OK. MastCell ^Talk 04:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

direct sentences look good. thank you.

Kiss.  ;-) 69.255.27.249 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The Yoda-speak was really bothering me. I'm a big believer that sentences should generally start with a subject, not a predicate—especially when the goal is to communicate clearly and simply. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

vitamin C and the common cold page

Dear mastcell, thank for your positive comments. I am on a different computer and I don't have my password with me, so I don't get signature here (Hhemila; I must keep password with me in future ...). I decided to write some comments on the basis of your text.

I have been doing research on vitamin C and the common cold for over 20 years (I do have other topics also...), so that my first systematic review on that topic was in 1990 in Finnish. Term systematic review was not used at that time but it was one. Now I am in charge of the Cochrane review on the topic. I must say to you that I am extremely (sic!) uncomfortable in writing a text that has 100% references to my own papers. That is not caused by intention to undervalue other peoples work, but that is caused by the very low interest in the topic in the academic circles so that I am personally not aware of relevant reviews that could be used for the sentences I wrote, in addition to my own papers. There are some reviews commenting the topic by other authors, but some of them are just taking conclusions from the Cochrane review, or picking unsystematically some original trials, etc. so I do not consider them very good (those which I know). Please, try to find something sound and add it/them. That would decrease my uncomfortable feeling, and people might take the page more seriously thereby.

You proposed that the page could be extended. I agree. One possibility is to add sentences about the immune system, and another about the history so that the increase in interest in early 1970s and the decline in interest after the middle of 1970s are described in slight more detail. I deleted the old references, since they are not relevant for "what we currently know," but they are relevant for understanding the history...

One big problem with vitamin C is that many people have strong emotions and beliefs associated with it. Some claim that it is a kind of cure all, and others claim that it does not have any other effects than preventing scurvy (truth is somewhere in the middle). Because of such emotions, I do not know how stable this kind of page can be in Wikipedia "vitamin C and the common cold". I mean that it does not make sense to work for a "good page" if some believers from either extreme come and mess it extensively and often. In any case your suggestion is very good and it does not take much time to formulate some statements e.g. on immune effects and history. I you want to go forward with your suggestion, I will participate.

Best wishes Hhemila 213.28.101.91 (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply on RfC on No paid advocacy

Since I only read and edit Wikipedia very irregularly lately, it has been 2 weeks since these comments, but I'd still like to address them (copied from Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy#RfC:_Should_Wikipedia:No_paid_advocacy_become_policy.3F):

• Oppose, largely per Risker above. The quality of Wikipedia is till very poor in so many (especially scientific) areas, that we should welcome scholars and scientists to write about their work, rather than prohibit it. I understand where this proposal is coming from, but ignoring the fact that academics might be the most valuable contributors Wikipedia can have, is not helpful. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't follow this reasoning. Paid advocacy is not going to improve the quality of our scientific coverage. This proposal is not going to prohibit scientists in general from contributing. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Reinoutr I agree with MastCell - how do you get there? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nowadays, scientists often are required, by their employers or funders to make sure that their research and results reach the general public as well. Contributing to the Wikipedia articles on the subjects they work on is an excellent way for them to do this and is increasingly happening, greatly improving the (often poor) articles on many scientific subjects on Wikipedia. But, since they do it as part of their work or because their funder requires them, this would strictly speaking, constitute a "financial conflict of interest" and the proposed new guideline would therefore, when strictly interpreted, prohobit scientist from editing articles on the topic of their expertise. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt this occurs. Rather, some individuals occasionally edit articles to try and promote themselves. It tends to be in a fashion that is a net negative for the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reinoutr: I don't think the situation you're describing actually exists. I am not aware of any case where an institution or funding agency has pressured—much less "required"—a scientist to publicize his/her results on Wikipedia. We do sometimes see instances where scientists cite their own work extensively here, but that's covered under WP:SELFCITE/self-promotion, and is separate from the issue of paid editing/paid advocacy. More generally, I find that Wikipedians often have very deeply held (and very deeply mistaken) ideas about the world of scientific research, and how it operates. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it at this. With regard to your last point, I do feel I have to point out that I actually am an academic scientist and therefore well aware of how "the world of scientific research" operates. I never said that funders require information to be put on Wikipedia. I said that funders nowadays require scientists to disseminate their research results also to the general public. Wikipedia is but one way of doing that, and not the best, apparently. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hey,

I just had a bunch of time away from Wikipedia due to my third year of med school. I've arranged an independent elective like the UCSF deal, but since it's just me I'm focusing on repro health subjects, especially abortion and contraception.

Right now I'm shooting the moon by trying to solve the lede problems over at abortion. I have some smaller goals planned for the month, but thought I'd check if you had any suggestions. Things you think one editor with a bunch of free time could fix.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

PS: guess I should mention that I'm asking you because you had some good advice for me a year or two ago on talk:abortion, and because I was impressed by your edits. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha Tri, I make no secret of the fact that I'm a MastCell groupie.  :) BTW, your posts have been very good as well! Gandydancer (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there MC. Could you please get rid of this editor [2]--at least the last seven edits have been childish BS changes. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That particular IP doesn't have many edits over the past 1-2 days so I'm not sure a block will make much sense. I'd be willing to temporarily semi-protect Ojibwe people, though, since it seems that several IPs have been edit-warring against consensus there. Would that solve the problem, do you think? MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If it was in my power to do so, I would without question warn, and then block if they did not change their problematic editing, an editor that changed the accepted spelling, "Ojibwe" to "Ojibwa" without discussion on Nov 7,8, and 11. Add to that, their contributions show 3 section deletions since Oct 21, and disruptive edits on other pages as well. But, from what I have seen when it comes to blocks, new editors that are clearly not helping with the work here are often treated with kid gloves, as though they will somehow learn on their own to quit being know-it-alls and/or smart asses. Gandydancer (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand your frustration. And honestly, if it were a named account I'd probably just block it for the long term. But because it's a shared IP, we generally don't employ long-term blocks for fear of collateral damage (whether this fear is well-grounded or not is up for debate, but I'm bound by standard practices here). And a short-term block of this IP is not likely to accomplish much, as it's only intermittently active. I'll go ahead and semi-protect Ojibwe people for a few weeks, which should be enough that s/he gets tired of messing with it. I think that will be the most practical solution, given the constraints we're operating under. MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not realize that it was a shared account--I suppose school kids. As for frustrating, not so much for me as it is fairly easy to just delete. But I don't understand why admins waste their time when it would be easy enough to have a group of editors that handled this sort of thing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to be back.

For all the headaches it is still a great project. I'm sure I'll be asking for help on things, please ask me if I can do anything for you. JodyB _talk 17:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey there

Thank you for being on board. Danger^Mouse (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hug

I know, you are a Very Serious Administrator of a Very Serious Project, but here is a kitten that represents a Hug, which you deserve because you are awesome.

petrarchan47tc 23:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm allergic to that adorable little bastard, but the thought behind it is much appreciated. :) Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ooph, a sneeze was not what I wanted to give you. Next time, Baklava! (Gluten free, just in case.) petrarchan47tc 23:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sick and tired and not gonna take it anymore

Education noticeboard. I'll just keep going as long as they (meaning paid staff, of which there are more by the day) ignore it. It is time to get a disclaimer on our medical articles. Not just a little note at the bottom that no one will see-- a real disclaimer at the top. It is not possible to keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. I've come to think that our successes in building medical content (through WP:MED and elsewhere) are actually harmful in the long run. There is some high-quality, or at least reasonably decent, medical coverage on Wikipedia—we've both dedicated a lot of time to ensuring that. But that credibility carries over to the extent that people likely believe that most or all of our medical coverage is good (which is a dangerous mistake).

I think that the current disclaimer satisfies the legal minimum and protects Wikipedia from lawsuits, but ethically we should probably try to do more. It's a tricky balance, because I've seen instances where people have genuinely found Wikipedia to be a helpful and extremely valuable health-information resource. But we just don't have the tools to succeed here. It's impossible to deal efficiently with abusive editors, thanks to our ridiculous dispute-resolution pathway and the ever-increasing volume of wiki-public-defenders whose sympathy for the underdog—any underdog—outweighs common sense and critical thinking. It's impossible to deal with conflicts of interest (for instance, our articles on Transcendental Meditation were more or less advertisements for the product, written largely by editors affiliated with the movement, and ArbCom ratified that state of affairs).

I haven't dealt much with the education/class-project aspect, but I can empathize with your frustration. I think these projects have the potential to be awesome, as a way to get new editors interested in Wikipedia and to improve our medical coverage. But the new editors aren't provided with the necessary oversight and advice. Becoming a good editor (and getting acculturated to Wikipedia) takes months of editing and trial-and-error. These projects turn loose a bunch of editors, set them a difficult task (writing high-quality medical content) which many of us still struggle with after 6 or 7 years on the project, and expect instant success with little or no investment of support. The results are predictable. It's unfortunate, because a well-run program of student engagement, with adequate support, could be a huge benefit to the project as a whole and to WP:MED specifically. In any case, thanks for your hard work in trying to provide the missing oversight. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty much ready to quit, this is horrible and the info we have is so bad it is morally irresponsible and indefensible. But I'm stubborn enough (and now mad enough about the number of paid staffers benefitting from bad medical info that unaware consumers don't even know was written by RandyFromBoise), that I want to see something done about this. This has gotten orders of magnitude worse in the two years since I resigned from FAC on the naïve notion that we would be able to fix the problems in medical content, and specifically with student editing. Google onboard? Our information becomes even more dangerous.

Colin, Anthonyhcole, Zad68, Jmh649, Choess, Looie496, Jfdwolff, Laser brain, Jbmurray. Do you think it feasible, and is there interest, for pushing for a visible disclaimer on medical content? What is most discouraging is that the medical project has gone so moribund that I don't see how we can even get critical mass to push for anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia, I'm quite disappointed with you here. This is the first time I've ever felt let down by you. You would be preaching to the choir if you weren't trying to construct false narratives for yourself that spin things in the worst way imaginable. I'm sorry, but that bit of ignorance has been removed. You can see on my user page where I make the ethical argument. You are preaching to the choir, but please don't shoot yourself (and the project) in the foot while you do it. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! Choess had already corrected me, I acknowledged my ignorance, have now struck. Holy cow, you actually deleted someone else's post ? Whatevs ... I won't object, since it was based on ignorance, but that's not generally a very good idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Google Hangout is just an online meeting tool—that's not a corporate sponsorship thing. On your question, I'm doubtful it's feasible simply because trying to get consensus on any sweeping policy change like that is nearly impossible these days. It might be worth trying, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone decides it has to be filibustered at all costs. If so, I think the best way to go about it would be to try trolling medical articles for seriously wrong/dangerous information, and compile a list of what those errors are and how long they've been there. That might shock people into recognizing that quality control can't keep up, if there's some long list of dangerous errors that have been lingering for years, as I expect some have

That leaves open the question of how our medical articles could ever get better. Looking at the big picture, I think what we're hitting is the limitations of the crowdsourced editing model. As our sourcing and reliability requirements become more stringent, it's getting harder and harder for the typical editor to make a change that will improve, rather than damage, these articles. (It's particularly profound in medicine, but true to some extent across the encyclopedia.) The problem is that no one seems to have a really good model for editor credentialing. Citizendium tried it and failed so disastrously (turf wars between overlapping magisteria, fringe quacks given authority over their subjects—although I understand we've done that with Transcendental Meditation now, in essence) that people will shy away from that idea for some time. I have no idea how to fix this, of course. Choess (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the google info-- glad to know. I was thinking of another approach to pushing for the disclaimer-- I put it on the FA I authored (Tourette syndrome) as a gesture of how strongly I feel about this. Would anyone back me? The shocking cases are much too easy to find ... more interesting might be one medical FA author willing to stand up and say IAmRandyFromBoise, talk to your doctor, do not trust me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole education programme needs a reboot or abandoned. The programme has been based on the misconception that there is an army of volunteers willing and able to do all the necessary work to publish a great encyclopaedia article provided some undergraduate doing an "Introduction to ..." course can knock up the first draft the night before some deadline. Wrongheaded thinking that all Wikipedia needed was more raw material and the existing community could refine it to gold. But wouldn't it be wonderful if academia were actually so clued up about how to create great articles that wikiprojects were queueing up with requests for new or rewritten articles? That people begged for the University of XXX to take on their subject as they knew they'd do such a great job. That rather than fear the next semester of students, we looked forward to new recruits to WP:MED. That universities respected Wikipedia so much they coordinated its improvement with professional care rather than fill it with B-grade essays. Why instead have we settled for such a low goal, and let the encyclopaedia we built be abused as an online homework exercise complete with unpaid teaching assistants. -- Colin°^Talk 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

But that horse is already out of the barn ... echolalia and agraphia were hit by unregistered courses. The word of mouth is such that profs are doing it on their own now. Hence, we need a disclaimer. We now have worse than RandyFromBoise generating medical content-- we have students who know next to nothing about the topics they are writing on, and we can't keep up. The WMF could stem the tide by putting out a very visible press release. Well, of course they won't do that. D'oh. I believe the community would back us if we pushed for an open disclaimer. I am willing for this to be the hill I die on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Time for the community to strike back against unhelpful and unregistered courses -- Wikipedia:Assignments was an attempt at a policy that says "No" to the "anyone can edit == let any prof do whatever they want" mindset. -- Colin°^Talk 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Three of us from Wikipedia gave a few hours of talk (via the web) to the five 4th year medical students who will be starting soon from UCSF. I will be directly keeping an eye on the 5 articles that they are editing. We discussed the keys around sourcing and paraphrasing. The prof is very engaged. Work to set up this educational effort has been going on for nearly a year. We will see if it works.

With respect to the medical disclaimer. I would see it as reasonable on everything that is not either GA or FA. Would be an extra reward for bringing the article to that level. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Our FAs and GAs are not necessarily any better, and a disclaimer should apply equally. Autism (FA) is entirely out of date per DSM5, and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (GA) is not in shape for prime time. I'm glad the UCSF program may work out, but one course possibly working will not address the big problem in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is still discussion on if the DSM5 is truely an update or not. Our GAs/FAs are generally better than most of our articles.

We are starting small at UCSF. The expectation / hope is that the students who go through the course will help mentor the next batch of students. If this turns out to be true and is effective than we may be able to increase the number of students we take on through this sort of program. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll throw out a "I feel your pain" and "I'd like to help" but beyond that I'm not sure what else to say. Is there a link to the disclaimer we're discussing? I don't think WP:MED is "moribund", isn't it one of the more active Wikiprojects? I personally have been a bit busy IRL so I haven't been stopping in there as often as I'd like but will surely pick up as things settle down. Zad68 03:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Many real requests for help there are going unanswered-- that was not historically the case. Instead, there seems to be a lot of jockeying and info related to external events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that newspapers do not carry this warning. Have you looked at the press around HIV cures lately. Take this one for example [3] People can do a lot worse than Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I support a simple but prominent disclaimer at the top of all articles tagged with {{WPMED}} (and pending changes for all such articles). I came across an article with dosing information the other day. Given that anyone could write any nonsense in our articles - they're by any definition not reliable and we should ensure our readers know that.

Choess, we could form our own scholarly review sub-project, with an independent editorial board inviting independent experts to review our best work. Once an article has passed scholarly review, the disclaimer at the top of the current version can be replaced with a link to the latest expert-reviewed version. Getting the right people for the editorial board is key, and they would probably have to pay the reviewers if we want the best. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Review for journal articles is typically done for free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I know. But if we set up our own scholarly review subproject and want the highest quality reviewers we'll need to pay. We're not Nature. And I would oppose anything like this that didn't use the top minds. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that keen on a prominent disclaimer because I'm not convinced it will have any effect. Plus one has to consider that the other crazy harmful websites out there that encourage people to avoid vaccinations or take herbs for their cancer don't have disclaimers. -- Colin°^Talk 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Catching up, well unless this small group is on board, I guess that idea is dead in the water. Jmh649, putting a disclaimer on some content, and not FA/GA, would open up all kinds of legal issues, like someone assuring that FAs and GAs are good info, which is problematic. And even if they are "today", they might not be five minutes from now (anyone can edit), so that just wouldn't work. But if this group won't fight for a medical disclaimer, I'm not sure for how much longer I can contribute to this sinking ship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd oppose one. It might make us feel better. But will someone then think the Daily Mail is a more reliable website as it is written by professional journalists (cough cough)? -- Colin°^Talk 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not part of this group, but I have long wondered why there is not some sort of a warning placed in all medical-related articles. Keep in mind that there is the usual stupidity of people, and add to that the fact that people really do not understand how Wikipedia works. They really just do not get it that any goddamn fool can, and sometimes does, edit. Sandy is absolutely correct, and if my medical editing amounted to much of anything I'd say the same thing. Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy ... what alarms me is the number of people I meet IRL who have absolutely no idea that RandyFromBoise writes Wikipedia. The average person on the street thinks these articles really are vetted, and when you mention you edit Wikipedia, they think you are paid. It's dangerous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Check this out; that sort of claptrap is the source of our malaise with respect to student medical editing, and Jami Mathewson is getting some position starting today. She has a new best friend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a disclaimer template at User:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer; what do you guys think? It's intended for placement at the top of articles that might be susceptible to misuse as legal/medical/financial guidance. I envision it being eventually located at {{Reliability disclaimer}}. Edits/suggestions/criticism welcome at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer. alanyst 17:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Analyst! But I would think something less "warning" looking, more "general statement" looking ?? And about a third that size? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. I've modified it though perhaps not as much size reduction as you envisioned. If you'd like to help me further refine it, let's move over to the sandbox talk page so we don't notify-spam MastCell. :) alanyst 18:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be out most of the rest of the day-- will get over there as I'm able. Thanks again !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, do you remember User:Encephalon? He was my first Wikipedia mentor. Well, so, anyway ... after two most insulting questions/propositions were posed at WP:ENB, I wrote this response as a tribute to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I ever interacted much with Encephalon (talk · contribs). The people who were role models for me when I started here were Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), Samir (talk · contribs), Eubulides (talk · contribs), and a bunch of others whom I'm unforgivably neglecting to name. As far as the student projects, like I said, I think there's enormous potential there but the students don't seem to be given the support they need to succeed here. Your points were all good ones, in my view. In particular, I appreciate you standing up for the idea that poor-quality or misleading medical content is potentially harmful in a unique way (or maybe not totally unique, but analogous to BLP violations). MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Medical content also seems to be uniquely difficult to source. If I'm writing about, say, ferns or minerals or something like that, I can go to the primary literature and (provided I've done an adequate literature search) I can generally work with it without fear of putting something totally nonsensical in an article. E.g., I just put a fern through DYK about which one sentence exists in the secondary literature (Flora of North America). If you started insisting that all the zoologists and so forth eschew the primary literature completely when writing articles, they'd laugh you out the door. So I think it's not all that surprising that people try to transfer what seems like a successful practice in other domains to medicine ("Let's go look up a bunch of articles in reliable scientific journals about this!") and come to grief against the wildly fluctuating results of medical studies. Choess (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You know. To the clueless ditzs who say we are demanding too much, sheesh-- is it really too much to ask students to add a PMID, so that the few of us trying to hold down the fort in here can more easily check sourcing ? And re the "wildly fluctuation results in medical studies", heck, Doc, Zad and I recently had a discussion about which is the best of the highest quality secondary reviews for a given topic-- how good is that !?! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd completely endorse the requirement for all MEDRS citations to include at least one of PMID, DOI, ISBN+page, OCLC+page, or URL. This at minimum should be required for GA status. wp:CITEMED would seem the proper home for details. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone who argued forcefully for the secondary-sources prioritization, I sometimes wish we were a bit more flexible. I think it's actually totally reasonable to cite primary sources in many cases, particularly uncontroversial ones. The problem arose because editors were cherry-picking primary sources to "rebut" secondary sources - it wasn't a problem with primary sources per se so much as with their misuse. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, MastCell, you were editing before Eubulides :) :) But, it is true that we would never have gotten the autism mess under control without him (and I don't know who is going to update the autism suite of articles-- they are in bad need). I'm tempted to add to my argument at the ENB, but it's kinda late ... but some of us old-timers know that Wikipedia played a role in the anti-vaccination deaths. And some of us know exactly which editors have blood on their hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the same is probably true of Wikipedia's early credulous (if not outright favorable) presentation of AIDS denialism. Someone reading our suite of articles back in 2005-2006 might well conclude that HIV is likely harmless and that HIV testing is usually inaccurate—actively dangerous nonsense which Wikipedia has played a role in promoting. That was one of the things that got me involved here in the first place, back in 2006. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I see a couple of issues with primary sources 1) they can be used to add content that is fringe / wrong 2) they add undue weight content such that important aspects of diseases are lost in pills of undue weight text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

But we do sometimes use them, appropriately. I allowed them when students hit (the ridiculously unworthy my time article at) klazomania, because there is nothing written about klazomania; you (Doc James) recently highlighted a worthy use at WT:MED, and I left a few of them at agraphia because they were only being used to cite definitional stuff (but I tagged them). But, yea, WP:UNDUE is the huge issue. Which reminds me, speaking of undue ... someone needs to look at Talk:Osteoarthritis. I am not a Dr. and I don't even play one on TV ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree there are a few that should be used and as per here I recently added one [4] but this was only after discussion and the fact that it was published in the NEJM and the number of patients in this single trial is twice what was in the previous meta analysis.

Here we discussed a primary source [5] and decided not to use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent example of why we do not use primary sources. Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Primary_source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It at the very least illustrates that you need to explain yourself better when addressing such issues. I'm far from a fringe editor, and i very much accept the possibility that i could be completely and utterly wrong - but you aren't really explaining the issue well. --Kim D. Petersen 01:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with the underlying article nor content dispute, in my experience Kim is an excellent, thoughtful, and constructive editor, so I'm hopeful that this dispute can be resolved amicably with additional discussion. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(←) I am coming very late to this discussion. I am humbled by MastCell's tribute. Unfortunately demands on my time in meatspace have substantially reduced the time I can spend on Wikipedia.

I think the core medical articles have been significantly improving in quality, mostly thanks to hard work by James. There is a huge amount of work to do, and I agree that unsupervised editing as part of educational projects is not something I can support anymore - there have been too many incidents and the course directors are themselves too unfamiliar with our community to see how badly wrong things can go. On the other hand, I think we have had much less trouble with POV trolls than we used to in the past. Even massively controversial topics have lively debate and attempts at consensus forming that would have been unimaginable in 2005.

The WikiProject has a huge scope and not as many editors as we might have wanted. That means that some more obscure topics are festering a little bit. Hopefully the consistent drive for improvement in the core articles will eventually "trickle down" to these topics also. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank's Jfd for your vote of confidence. Hopefully real life will quiet down for you and we will see you back more :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Medical disclaimer

After discussion on multiple talk pages, it was revealed that multiple other language Wikipedias do have medical disclaimers.

Wikipedia language	Number of articles	Template	Position in article
Chinese	732,000	zh:Template:Medical small	Top
Dutch	1,700,000	nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma	Top
German	1,600,000	de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen	Bottom
Indonesian	322,000	id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis	Top
Norwegian	399,000	no:Mal:Helsenotis	Bottom
Portuguese	802,000	pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico	Section: Treatment
Turkish	220,000	tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı	Top

This proposed version for use on en.wikipedia emerged from discussion at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer and several other on-Wiki talk pages and external websites:

I am planning to install it on Tourette syndrome (where I am the only significant contributor) unless a significant consensus against emerges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I don't really have strong feelings, other than to say that my immediate response on viewing Template:Bullying is that it's way too big. It can't possibly be necessary to include a link to our article on yelling (which is actually a piped link to vociferation, which in turn is a redirect?!?) or insult, right? In any case, I'll leave it up to folks who are already discussing at the RfC. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I voted...

float

...and I even managed to find 6 people I could live with supporting for ArbCom this year. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

... aaaaand I voted again, because of the technical screwup. Oddly enough, this time I only supported 5 people. I can't remember exactly how I voted the first time, but I wonder who lost a vote because of the technical glitch. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:MastCell/ACE2013 isn't being filled out then? I ended up getting seven, but I could easily have talked myself to dropping that down to four. NW (Talk) 17:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I gave up. I just don't have the energy to say thoughtful things about 20-some candidates, especially when most of them would be polite but firm opposes. I'd be happy to talk about any specific candidate, but the whole guide-writing thing wasn't happening for me this year. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(watching) I did not write but let the candidates speak, in a sortable list, - link from "vote" on top of in the new infobox on my user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Would you be willing to simply mention your choices? It's so much easier to copy someone else. ;) II | (t - c) 05:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know how you came up with five or six. Four supports, seven abstains, 11 opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @ImperfectlyInformed:, there are 3 people whom I was genuinely enthusiastic to support: 28bytes, Floquenbeam, and Seraphimblade. I'm not sure how many of them will be successful; for instance, I think Seraphimblade has done excellent work at WP:AE, which is probably the single most challenging and demanding administrative arena on the project. But by virtue of working WP:AE, you make enemies of some of the most obsessive, vindictive people on the project, which makes it hard to get elected. But I'm completely confident that these 3 will make excellent Arbs.
    I was willing to support Gamaliel and AGK, albeit with serious reservations. I think I abstained on LFaraone and GorillaWarfare - they both seem competent and well-meaning, but I haven't seen either of them put themselves out there in any way that I've noticed. Maybe that's not a fair criterion, but I've been here awhile, and if I haven't encountered someone in the trenches taking on difficult situations in some capacity, then I can't feel comfortable supporting them. I've just been burned too many times by seemingly innocuous ciphers.
    The two current Arbs were the toughest call for me. I'm pretty ambivalent about AGK, but NuclearWarfare's endorsement swayed me, because NW sees a lot of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes, and apparently AGK has been a hard worker there. I ended up opposing Roger, which was a really tough call. I think he's been an excellent Arb over the last 5 years. I agree with 90% of his thinking. But his handling (and his thought processes) on the TM case, and the wider issue of COI editing, are way too evasive and seem totally divorced from and unsympathetic to the plight of those of us who actually edit controversial articles.
    I think the problem is that Roger has been on the Committee too long. Five years is too many. Even someone like Roger (sensible, with good instincts) ends up totally out of touch with the reality that the rest of us live in. The real pisser, though, is that we have 9 empty seats and we don't have 9 candidates who are better than Roger. If he loses, his seat will be taken by someone worse. That made it hard to oppose him, but in the end, five years is just too long.
    GeorgeWilliamHerbert is someone who seems reasonable, mature, and sensible. But when presented with a situation, he almost invariably comes to what I consider the completely wrong conclusion. I said as much when he ran in 2010, but back then I supported him anyway. This time I can't.
    I opposed Bwilkins and Beeblebrox, for pretty much the same reasons in both cases. They both seem to attract negativity and criticism, and they're both pretty bad at dealing with criticism. The mere fact that they're shit magnets doesn't mean that they're doing anything wrong - sometimes the obsessive nutcases who circle this project latch onto someone because they smell blood and not for any good reason. But if you attract a lot of criticism, then you have to at least be able to deal with it maturely. I don't think these two can. That's a recipe for disaster if they're elected to the Committee, where the targets on their backs will be exponentially larger.
    The rest of the candidates, I opposed either as well-meaning but unqualified, or as dear-god-if-this-person-is-elected-i-quit-effective-immediately (I'll call the latter a "Jclemens oppose"). If there's someone specific that I haven't discussed in detail whom you're curious about, let me know and I'll elaborate. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 00:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll take a closer look at Seraphimblade and Gamaliel who I hadn't really recognized. I only know about the major ArbCom cases in broad strokes (even though I've got like half a page in Nixnote to refresh my memory), but I appreciate that some clearly seem to do a load of work. I also appreciate that AGK seems relatively communicative. I feel slightly guilty voting because I'm so imperfectly informed but I think it should be OK. Although my views are still evolving, I'm probably in the minority view on the 'civility' issue and I feel like I have limited tolerance for unnecessary drama-stirring rudeness. I really wonder if a strong civility policy would just further reduce our userbase or would eliminate those who have a net negative effect on our userbase. Incidentally, been reading Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life and how game theory applies to Wikipedia. Sometimes punishments need to be extreme to be effective deterrents. II | (t - c) 07:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Frankly, I think people are far, far too hard on candidates. I can see at least 10 who would be acceptable, and will oppose only those whom I believe will actually cause harm. People have to grow into the arbitrator role; expecting people to be able to be perfectly prepared before they have any experience with the majority of the work is a bit ridiculous. Several of the most productive, sensible and/or effective arbitrators we've had were just above the cut-off; several of the least productive, sensible and/or effective arbitrators we've had were at or near the top of the rankings. I should go vote, I suppose. Risker (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm overcompensating; the record shows my standards have been too low for many years :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand where you're coming from. Perhaps this is a classic example of things looking different from the inside. There's no such thing as "perfect" (although I'll admit the 2009-10 arbcoms were very good), but there will always be an outlier or two in the group. The challenge is not having them at each other's throats or disrupting the overall process. I've now voted, with 10 supports, 5 abstentions and 8 opposes. My supports went to candidates who met at least two of these criteria:

• Evidence of maturity with life experience
• Evidence of having clue
• Some degree of technical expertise (you'd be surprised how valuable this really is)
• Experience in more than one area of the project
• Self-identified membership in a significantly underrepresented demographic (women, in particular - this is my personal bias)
• Evidence of critical thinking
• Experience with dispute resolution
• Steady participation (no really big gaps in the past year)
• Not being an administrator (I'd really like to see at least one non-admin make it through)

I'm very much of the belief that Arbcom needs a "reset", and that too many arbitrators selected in the last few elections were either (a) incumbents or former arbitrators, (b) arbcom clerks (past/present) or (c) checkusers/oversighters; in fact, there were only two arbitrators at the start of 2013 who didn't fit into one of those categories at the time they were elected. While I'm not excluding all candidates from those groups, several of my opposes and abstentions are going there. I think, as well, that we really ought to bring on at least one non-admin; the further away arbitrators get from the days before their adminship, the less they remember the frustrations and sense of impotence that many non-admins experience.

Well, we'll see how things go. Risker (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

They're interesting points, for sure, and I've always valued your input on this matter. I suspect my perspective is still closer to MastCell's and SandyGeorgia's. I know at least in the former's case, dissatisfaction with previous cases has led to a wish to a caution in whom to support. I had much the same reaction in the past, and sadly, I'm going to end up tarring one of your favourite committees here. The 2009 committee rendered WP:ARBMAC2, which basically told nationalists to walk all over any admin who tries to edit for neutrality; eventually you'll get them desysopped, and an arb will even accuse them of having an "Atlas complex". And sadly, I had previously supported that arb for his position, as well as the drafter of that decision. I think you can see how I became very cautious about whom I'm willing to support.

In summary, I really do find your insider's perspective fascinating and have used it to moderate some of my own views lately. It doesn't change the fact that I've seen first-hand the ability the committee has to screw both users and the encylopedia over, and that the implication that seems to carry is to be careful whom you lend support to. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The most interesting discussions invariably end up on user talk pages... (I'm sure there is some Wikipedia law about that). Risker's comments above are fascinating, though I am going to have to resist the temptation to speculate as to which past and present arbitrators (including all those present) fall into the 'least productive, sensible and/or effective' classes mentioned. One thing that can happen is that arbitrators approaching the end of their terms may fall into a certain mindset (the 'halfway out the door' mentality). Sometimes that helps, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes arbs gird themselves to carry on or campaign for more, sometimes they re-align themselves to take on fresh challenges. Arbitrating to a consistently high level for 4-7 years as some have attempted to do, is not at all easy. To do those 4-7 years consecutively is another step up again. Risker and Roger were first elected in the same year I was (2009) and they took seats with three-year terms, each followed by a 2-year term. Kirill (around 7 years) and Newyorkbrad (coming up to the seventh year) are (I think) the only arbs to do more than five years. There are only six who have done 4 or more years: James Forrester did around 4.5 years, Fred Bauder did 4 years, David Fuchs is in the second term of a stretch of 4 years (as am I), AGK is standing for a third and fourth year, Risker has done 5 years, Roger 5 years and standing for a further two. I am forever grateful that I only had an initial 2-year term. This was followed by a 2-year break (mostly spent decompressing). Having that break does provide a different perspective, but whether is was a useful difference in perspective, I'm still not sure. Looking at Risker's list above, I agree with those points, especially the non-admin bit. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice please?

Hi MastCell: Can you tell me please what I've been evasive about? And what you find so troubling about my thought processes? Can you please tell me what the committee (who were remarkably unanimous) could and should have done differently in the TM case?  Roger Davies ^talk 10:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: I'm sorry, the "TM case" I had in mind was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal, not WP:ARBTM. I apologize for my misleading shorthand. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's okay, but my earlier point about unanimity still applies;) The committee was remarkably unanimous in the TimidGuy decision  Roger Davies ^talk 07:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel that you've been evasive about this case in a number of venues. First off, there was the question of WillBeback's ban appeal, where the Committee gave me what I consider a remarkably bureaucratic run-around in response to a simple question. I'm not going to re-litigate that situation here, mainly because I don't really care about WillBeback's ban per se. It was a simple question of accountability - I still cannot for the life of me understand the resistance on the part of Arbs to a basic degree of accountability which is far less than the average admin is expected to display on a daily basis. And if I get this kind of run-around, then I can only imagine how the process would feel to a less-established editor. I also think you were evasive about the case in this discussion.MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't want to re-litigate it either but I can't leave what you have unrebutted. You say you had "a bureaucratic run-around in response to a simple question". It wasn't a simple question at all because there was no binary vote. It did not sidestep any issues of accountability because nothing prevents anyone from asking each arbitrator individually for a simple statement outlining their position. Here's a characteristically robust request from earlier on this year. One of the odd things was that nobody asked me what my position was: they just made assumptions.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an exceedingly strange comment. Committee members were asked for there positions a bunch of times. I have tabulated them here [6] Collecting this information was like pulling teeth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

!?  Roger Davies ^talk 22:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

But mostly I was disappointed by your comments in response to my ArbCom election question. I'd actually like to know what you think about the difficult gray areas related to COI. You punted by saying that ArbCom couldn't sanction people based on the "appearance of impropriety". As I mentioned in my follow-up, the "appearance of impropriety" principle is in fact long-standing and a key part of at least 3 ArbCom decisions. On a more abstract level, I wasn't interested in your view of ArbCom's role. I was interested in your thoughts about the COI problem, which confronts editors like me on a daily basis. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• While COI editing is hugely controversial with in some quarters, the position is not really all that grey. Despite numerous community discussions over the past few years; the guideline remains substantially unchanged. To summarise, COI editing is discouraged but not forbidden; harassment of editors with alleged COIs is prohibited. I'm not clear what I can usefully add about the "appearance of impropriety" principle other than re-iterate that the committee expects editors to avoid creating it. The "appearance of impropriety" is not, and never has been, in and of itself sanctionable. As I only encounter COI issues on Wikipedia, my thoughts pretty much align with the current guideline. In this context, this essay on medical COI seems sensible but I'm not sure it advances our discussion much. The TimidGuy case was never really about medicine but instead about using outing to advance an anti-NRM agenda.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The "thought process" issue has to do with what I think is your estrangement from the reality that many of us inhabit as editors. The TimidGuy ban appeal decision was a disaster for editors, and for people who care about Wikipedia's credibility. The reason has nothing to do with WillBeback, although it's been disappointingly easy for you to write off concerns as coming from a disgruntled group of "WBB supporters". :It has to do with the fact that you guys effectively validated a situation where editors with a clear and obvious COI can dominate and twist our medical coverage with impunity. ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but it needs to set conditions where reputable, accurate content can flourish. The TimidGuy decision was a huge failure from that perspective, and I really think you still have no idea why I'm so upset by it. That last bit is why I voted against you. I think you've been on the Committee long enough that you've lost your feel for how content disputes actually play out, and so I don't think you understand the implications of the TimidGuy decision for Wikipedia's medical content. Or maybe you do understand, and don't view it as a problem, which would be even worse from my perspective.MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think your suggestion that I'm estranged from reality is out of order. While I don't physically edit content anything like as much as I'd like, a considerable amount of my time is spent on disputes of all types and in all areas. This gives arbitrators a very good "big picture" perspective. Now while I understand what you say, "Wikipedia is what it is"™. Even if there were consensus about what ails the encyclopedia, it is not the committee's role to cure it. The committee may not resolve content disputes, nor may it create policy out of whole new cloth. To apply this to the TimidGuy case, there was no basis in policy for TimidGuy's ban and no justification in policy for Will Beback's harassment of him. This is how an overwhelming majority of the committee – which included three health professionals – voted. Yet if, in the election, you have blamed me because I too upheld core policy, and upheld the community's supremacy in policy and content matters over ArbCom, then so be it.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Of course there's a basis in policy for TimidGuy's ban. He has a conflict of interest with regard to TM. He refuses to comply with the best practices set forth in WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI. And in service of his COI, he's repeatedly violated our guidelines on medical content. As far as I'm aware, none of those facts is in dispute. They constitute a sufficient basis for a topic ban, or at the very least for compelling him to abide by our recommended best practices. (Of course, they do not justify Will's harassment of him, which is a separate matter). I don't blame you for banning Will—I blame you (and the Committee as a whole) for failing to apply our existing guidelines and best practices to TimidGuy, and by extension for legitimizing COI-driven editing of our medical content. MastCell ^Talk 07:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I disagree. The applicable procedural policy says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines"; they are NOT mandatory, nor do they prohibit editing with a COI; and there are dozens of them (Category:Wikipedia guidelines). We cannot compel anyone to follow best practice; and it would cause riots if we tried to do so.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Of course we can't compel every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a COI to follow best practices. I'm talking about compelling a specific editor, one who's repeatedly violated our content guidelines in service of his COI. Once an editor has shown (repeatedly) that his COI compromises his editing, then it seems reasonable to restrict him to the talkpage (per best practices), as a more lenient alternative to a topic ban. MastCell ^Talk 08:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Five years is a long time. Wikipedia has changed immeasurably as an editing environment in the past 5 years. How long has it been since you were involved in a serious content dispute as an editor, and tried to utilize our dispute-resolution system from an editor's perspective? It's the ivory-tower problem. Policy questions look very different in the abstract setting of an ArbCom case than they do in the trenches. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The alternative was to legitimise and encourage outing and harassment, in the name of exposing a COI. The consequences of this on the encyclopedia would have been potentially catastrophic as editors were investigated and intimidated by people who disagree with them. It would have given a new and powerful weapon to the warriors who invest certain topics. It would have paved the way to disenfranchising (just to give a handful of examples):
  • transgender people in transsexuality articles;
  • Muslims in the Islam topic;
  • ban practically anyone with any beliefs (religious or atheist) in the Christianity topic;
  • soldiers in histories of their regiments; and
  • Russians in articles about Eastern Europe.
  It is clear from the unanimity of the committee that my colleagues knew where their duty lay. Roger Davies ^talk 07:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Once again you've cast this as a binary choice, when it's not. It was possible to sanction Will's harassment and deal with TimidGuy's COI editing. These aren't mutually exclusive. You guys had a duty to deal with Will's actions, but you also had a duty to deal with (or at least acknowledge) the difficulties created by the TM accounts and their blatant disregard for our COI best practices. MastCell ^Talk 08:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I need to close by saying a couple of important things. First of all, I think you've been one of the top 5 Arbs we've had. Ever. I think you've brought an excellent sensibility to the job, and I agree with >90% of what you've (visibly) done on the Committee. I have voted for you in every previous election in which you've stood. Like I said, it was not an easy decision to oppose this time around. It pains me that our relationship has acquired this sort of adversarial character (and I'll take a lot of the responsibility for that), because I respect you and I think you've done a better job on the Committee than I'd do. You really have been one of our best. I think you're likely to win re-election this time around, and frankly, I'd probably be happy to see you on the Committee again despite all of the concerns I've voiced here.

If I could ask one thing, it's this: when you're re-elected, try to keep a perspective on how things work for the average editor in practice. That's what I care about. I'm not a "WBB supporter" (I don't really care whether he stays banned or not). I'm not an "anti-TM editor". I'm someone who cares about the quality, credibility, and accuracy of Wikipedia, especially as it pertains to medical content, and I want to know that people on the Committee share those priorities.

Finally, in the end, I'm one person with one vote. These are just my opinions. They may or may not be fair. I'm cognisant of the possibility that I'm being unfair to you. But those are my concerns. I appreciate any consideration you're willing to give them (and I mean that seriously and respectfully, not WP:CIVILly). MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank for your kind words. Whatever the outcome of the election, I shall do my utmost to keep your remarks in mind. However, here's something for you to think about. An important part of my platform is reducing and shedding some of ArbCom's huge portfolio of responsibilities. This will enable us to focus better on core activity; cases. I've outlined it this here and here. If re-elected, I will be the only arbitrator with an experience of, and a track record of, widescale reform. To do so though, I need a strong mandate. As you have now recorded your protest, I ask you to consider supporting me in my efforts to push through change.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Roger, I know that you know that I hold you in very high professional and personal esteem, and I am not a WBB fan, but I am editor in the medical trenches dealing with the daily onslaught of dangerous medical POV. I share MastCell's concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliment, Sandy. A great deal of my time goes in dealing with outing and harassment and that is what this case was really about. It is about the chilling effect of revealing private information publicly, about contacting employers, about contacting family members, about stopping people sleeping soundly at night. This is stuff that the WMF needs to be taking on and part of my platform is encouraging them to do so. I am the only candidate with a plan for dealing with this. Your support is needed; this stuff is far too important to be left to volunteers.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but jump in here. Please see the essay I've put up on my userpage, and note the third point: The locus of the case is almost irrelevant to the nature and outcome of the case. The TimidGuy case had nothing to do with TM, or medicine. (We probably do a disservice by using topic areas as case names, though.) It had to do with WillBeback's behaviour, and to a lesser degree TimidGuy's behaviour. If WBB had behaved in the same way to you, or me, or any other editor of relatively unsullied reputation or who wrote in a less controversial area, there would have been no question. But because TimidGuy isn't terribly popular, and he's had some issues keeping his personal beliefs out of his editing (as did WillBeback, to be honest)....well, he's an easy target. But the TimidGuy case was never about medicine or TM or pseudoscience. Risker (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Risker: I'm sure that for ArbCom, the case was never about medicine or TM. But the case nonetheless had a major impact on those topic areas. And I don't get the sense that ArbCom understood or cared about that impact. That's the point I was trying to get across to Roger. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Risker: I'm a huge lurker so I read a ton but don't comment often, especially since what I've got to say seems to mostly have been said before. As far as this case, I sorta feel like I'm stating the obvious but I'll say it anyway. At a certain point, the case became about process and not about Will. It was also about a broader theme of disconnection from the regular group. I have a vague recollection of running across Will Beback once back in 2007 or 2008 when I was just starting out (can't locate the details), and he provided some smooth, neutral commentary and helped address a conflict I was having. As a newbie, I was impressed. That was the only interaction I can recall. By the time I went to the BASC page to inquire about how the vote had went down, User:Jmh649 had a petition with a relatively large number of people (30 or 40 supporters and a bunch of opposers commenting). When you consider that only a few hundred people vote in ArbCom, that's a really significant number. When I looked back on Will Beback's talkpage discussions, I found none of the immature, passive-aggressive, biting commentary which is so typical among so many of Wikipedia's editors. And yet we never really got a good response from ArbCom. Eventually, it turned out that five people, including yourself (though you had previously voted not to ban), didn't even comment on the unban discussion. If I recall correctly, User:MastCell likes to remark that editing Wikipedia isn't a human right, and that therefore blocking/banning is "no big deal". So you could turn that around on him here. From my perspective, however, there is something demoralizing for those who have been around a while in the that someone can be treated with such abject disregard after all the time and energy spent on the project. Incidentally, I'm not in the same camp as Will Beback, MastCell and others when it comes to Transcendental Meditation – in my view, as a (somewhat inconsistent) meditator (no mantra), the more meditators out there the better, so it doesn't much concern me if more people think that meditation has miraculous effects because its hyped up a bit. The side effects in comparison to most medical therapies is really minimal. But that's a separate issue. II | (t - c) 06:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think people can figure out from the TimidGuy case that WBB carried out an off-wiki campaign against another editor that was at the level that normally gets users banned by the community; instead what happened was that he tried to get the other editor banned, and very nearly succeeded. That is what the case was about. It wasn't about TM or anything else. However, and I will say this clearly....WBB did not do much editing in the medical/health area, except where it intersected with his "interest" in new religions (or whatever they're currently called in trendy circles). His banning should not have had any effect on WP:MED; he wasn't a significant contributor to that area. That we wouldn't let him back until he gave reassurances that he would not repeat the behaviour should be considered a net positive: what about if he doesn't agree with someone else's editing, for whatever reason? Let's be honest, at least half the people posting on this talk page have either experienced the negative effects of on- an off-wiki cyberstalking or have considerable concerns about it happening to them. WBB was not editing in the topic area because of medical claims, and it worries me that experienced editors with an analytical bent wouldn't have figured that out. Risker (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I'm not communicating my point clearly. I'm not defending Will, who as you note focused mostly on cults rather than on medical content in any case. I'm saying that the way the case was framed had repercussions beyond Will, for those of us who edit medical content. I don't think anyone on ArbCom understands or acknowledges those repercussions.

@ImperfectlyInformed: I'm actually not anti-meditation at all. (In general, I'm much more sympathetic to alternative medical approaches than people assume. It's only when they're promoted dishonestly that I get upset). There's pretty decent evidence that mindfulness-based meditation can help combat burnout among health-care professionals, and a number of academic medical centers now offer mindfulness training to faculty and staff; the sessions tend to be very well-attended. However, TM is a proprietary and very expensive form of meditation, and its proponents often promote it as superior to other forms of meditation (a point on which the literature is inconclusive at best). Numerous accounts affiliated with the TM movement are using Wikipedia to promote their proprietary, expensive product in a manner which violates our guidelines on medical content. That's highly concerning, but I'm pessimistic that anything can be done to stop it. MastCell ^Talk 07:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is my issue. There was no element of the COI that could not be applied to a goodly number of editors within WP:MED itself, not to mention hundreds of other editors throughout the project working on a huge range of topics. Stating that one should not edit in topic areas related to one's belief system would eliminate all Catholics from editing about the Pope, Jews from editing about the Torah or Chanukah, and so on; we don't want that, and in many cases these editors are actually the "experts". (Think about it: does anyone from WP:MED not hold beliefs about the effectiveness of treatments or procedures related to some of the articles they're editing?) Academic editors adding references to published studies from their own institution - it should always be about the quality of the study and the reference, not whether the academic comes from the same organization. Entire areas of the project, including WP:MED, would be negatively affected if those who edit newsletters or journals on their topic of expertise were considered to be "COI". It's actually one of the primary reasons why COI is a guideline — it's pretty much impossible to make a generic rule that won't actually harm the project more than simply requiring rigid adherence to NPOV will do. Risker (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

All who where involved know that the relationship was much closer than what you describe above. When I spoke at the NIH I emphasized that the staff are not to edit articles about the NIH. Bio did the same at the World Health Organization. I do not write about those who cut my checks or those who I work with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't. And that is exactly the problem. The continued rumour-mongering here is unacceptable. You're defending someone else's very POV editing on new religious movements as an excuse to whack someone else, and then claiming it's all about WP:MED. What it is really about is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You really think nobody at the WHO who edits wikipedia has never linked to a study somehow or other supported by the WHO? That nobody from the NIH edits in their specialty area? If they aren't editing in their specialty area, why are they being recruited? What is the value of recruiting expert editors and then telling them they cannot edit in their area of expertise? Risker (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What every you like Risker. Some on arbcom have make some very strange comments when people bring up this case. Discussing further details would likely be used by arbcom to ban the editors involved. The whole case has sort of stifled discussion around what is or isn't COI. The position of arbcom appears to be that any questioning of arbcom decisions will result in an indefinite ban, that arbcom is above questioning. I would not support your re election either but thankfully you are not running.

People at the WHO should not write about the WHO or the people they work with IMO. Some on arbcom obviously feel they should. We have agreed to disagree. Yes you and some others on arbcom do not like my position. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Risker: Wait a minute. We're not talking about someone simply editing in the area of their belief system. (Editors are welcome to edit articles related to their belief systems, provided they're capable of doing so neutrally—something which, incidentally, TimidGuy has repeatedly failed to do). We're talking about someone directly employed by the TM movement, editing to promote products marketed by the TM movement, and in doing so violating our guidelines on medical content. The correct analogy is this: an editor is employed by Merck; they edit Wikipedia to remove or downplay criticism of Merck and to inappropriately promote products marketed by Merck. I don't think anyone would accept that sort of COI editing. I'm not defending Will—it would be inappropriate to harass or persecute the Merck editor—but it would be equally inappropriate to allow him free reign on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we probably are talking about someone editing in the area of their belief system. Your Merck analogy is wrong as you seem to have been misinformed.

On your other point, we looked at neutrality in the case. There is no evidence (as you claim above) that "clearly [demonstrates] that his COI compromises his editing". We investigated advocacy allegations and found them unfounded. Other related findings stated "5.2a) Analyses by arbitrators of TimidGuy's edits since October 2010, when the two-month topic ban elapsed, do not appear to have detected any significant systemic concerns or apparent advocacy." and "5.2b) During the course of the review, evidence was presented which demonstrated that some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with the reliable sources (medicine) guideline". By way of remedy, he was advised to adhere closely to the guideline in future. While the early edits (2006-07) enthusiastic/promotional in nature, the picture that clearly emerges is of someone whose editing has become increasingly dispassionate as time has gone on.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If I'm misinformed about TimidGuy's COI, it's because I trusted ArbCom when they found that he has a COI. You guys also linked to statements where TimidGuy indicated that he's employed by the TM movement, and that he had no intention of retiring anytime soon (e.g. [7],[8]). Repeat: not just "editing in the area of their belief system", but editing to advance the interests of their employer. Please, explain to me how I'm misinformed here. MastCell ^Talk 02:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because he's not removing or downplaying criticism, or inappropriately promoting products. If you want to ban people on the basis of a COI alone, you'll need to explicitly prohibit it in policy.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to ban anyone. I want to understand why TimidGuy (and the other TM accounts) are exempt from following our best practices for handling COIs. MastCell ^Talk 07:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I also oppose Roger for the reasons that MastCell presents above very succinctly. There is a lack of WP:CLUE here. Arbcom needs to be given much less authority. I have no opinion of TM beyond that of the best available literature. What we have here is a small religious movement selling a very expensive product via Wikipedia and based on what they claim to be "science". We are more or less being used for advertising and arbcom come out in support of use being used in this fashion. The so called "outing" occurred in an email to arbcom and a number of other Wikipedia functionaries including Wales. It is amazing to read the diffs that are presented to justify his ban [9] He spoke out against arbcom's lack of concern for COI and this is part of the evidence used to ban him. Sort of emphasis that if one speaks out against arbcom they will be indefinitely banned. And no community consensus is able to overturn it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Roger and Risker, I think there's a misunderstanding about what a COI is. A COI is not a bias or point of view. It's not about Christians writing about Christianity. A COI is about competing relationships, and is caused by an external relationship – often a financial one – undermining someone's primary role. A judge's primary role qua judge is undermined if she has an external relationship with a defendant in her court; she can't be the judge and the defendant's business partner, for example. (For more, see Michael Davis, "Introduction," in Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (eds.), Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001, p. 8ff.)

I think TimidGuy should not have been blocked (and I apologize to him for raising his name here on talk; I know it's not pleasant to be discussed like this, but the case had quite an impact and unfortunately now has a life of its own). But it seems clear that he should have been asked to stick to the talk page. He works or worked for an organization that sells a trademarked, relatively expensive product, and he writes about that product on Wikipedia. This isn't about meditation or being an academic who is interested in a philosophy or religion. It's about selling a brand of meditation, just like a pharmaceutical company selling a drug. Buy this one, don't buy that one.

TimidGuy was open about his COI in 2006, when an editor wanted to add to Transcendental meditation that a former certified TM teacher was offering TM classes. Timid Guy objected, arguing that TM is a trademark, and that teachers who have left the movement are not allowed to call it TM. Therefore, he argued, neither is Wikipedia allowed to call it that when it's offered independently. Someone suggested dispute resolution. TimidGuy replied (bold added):

I don't think it would be appropriate to take this through the dispute process, since it's a legal matter. It would be better if you do whatever you want. Then I'll send that to our legal counsel, and if he feels it violates the trademark, he'll then send a letter to Wikipedia, as he's done before. It's a matter for the U.S. legal system, not Wikipedia's dispute system. [10]

"Our" legal counsel refers to the general counsel for the Maharishi University of Management and Maharishi Foundation Ltd, which owns the "Transcendental Meditation" trademark. The full discussion is here. That makes clear that TimidGuy identifies with the TM movement, not with Wikipedia, and that he's willing to come close to making a legal threat to keep the article the way the movement wants it. That's not a position that an independent Wikipedian would take. We don't refuse to call independent practitioners of Scientology "Scientologists" (see, for example, Mike Rinder), based on the preferences of the Church of Scientology. That the ArbCom banned Will and took no action against TimidGuy sent a chill through Wikipedia and seriously hampered efforts to deal with COI, especially financial COI. Editors really have no idea now what we're allowed to say and not say when confronted with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So this should have immediately resulted in an indefinite ban per NO LEGAL ATTACKS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

At the time (2006), legal threats - even if this was one, which it clearly isn't - were not enforceable by blocks[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_legal_threats&oldid=90620435 see footnote)  Roger Davies ^talk 03:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

At that time legal threats were indeed blockable. See, for example, the first two blocks of Tommysun. However, I think they were not yet automatic indefs. Cardamon (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. I'm not sure what point you're making here. For all practical purposes, the definition of COI on Wikipedia is what the applicable guideline says it is. That guideline casts the net considerably wider than just financial interests. It explicitly says: Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. You are one of the main drafters of the COI guideline: if you mean it to be interpreted considerably more narrowly, you need to edit the guideline to say so.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

SG

I asked long ago (somewhere, can't remember) for an explanation of what WBB had done wrong, and was given a satisfactory explanation (I believe from Kirill, but I could be misremembering), so I'm on board with what you're saying, Risker. And I voted for Roger (but find myself unwilling to put up a voter guide this year because I'm uncomfortable recommending others do so, and I did so just because the alternatives are so troubling this year). Here's where I come out on the big picture relative to how five years on ArbCom can put someone out of touch with what is going on out here/down here in the trenches (where things are decidedly more nasty than they were, for example, during the three arbcases I've participated in-- 2008 thru 2010).

There were at least three cases or requests this year where I had a treasure trove of diffs that could have made a difference in findings and remedies. Putting together evidence and participating in an arbcase is extremely time consuming, and when I'm faced with the kind of dangerous medical misinformation that Wikipedia is spreading in articles that do have real power to affect people's health and lives (eg here, here, here, and here), I have to think long and hard about whether I can spend my limited Wiki-time adding evidence to discussions of editor behavior and belligerence and collusion in Argentine history, or Infoboxes or the infamous "QAI shenanigans" which had a deep and wide reach.

My point is that when arbs fail to understand how bad things are in the trenches in general and in the medical quackery realm specifically-- and appear to come to the table with predetermined positions-- the time that productive editors could use to bring diffs to other cases is impacted. I am out in the trenches daily dealing with many of the same editors who show up in all of the quackish/fringeish articles. And that's where my priority has to be, because when Wikipedia promotes dangerously bad medical misinformation, I may as well quit, and I will before I will prioritize my time to editor misbehavior in Infoboxes or Argentine history or dead horses or the declining FA process. The Arbs missed the opportunity to curb some behaviors in cases this year because of an abundance of evidence that simply wasn't presented. We need arbs who take MEDRS seriously, and don't view evidence-based editing as merely another "POV", no different than say, reading the stars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Found the old explanation of where Will Beback went wrong at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Clear as mud. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hum had not seen this. So arbcom thinks that WB submitted information he knew was wrong to Jimmy Wales to get TG banned. I have never seen a clear explanation of what was wrong with the info WB submitted ( from my examination it was correct ). Arbcom of course like to act in secret. So was he banned for sending it to me or was it for sending it to Jimmy? I was both an admin and president of Wikimedia Canada at the time. WMCA was the only Wikimedia entity dealing with medical outreach at that point in time (thus I was an official functionary). This work has been moved over to WPMEDF.

Part of the actions of arbcom appear to me to be more or less an effort to de legitimize any role of Jimmy Wales in conflict resolution. A fight to determine who is top dog, which arbcom won. Jimmy appears to disagree with arbcom's decision in this case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's get this clear. WBB put together a secret dossier. He sent this to Jimmy who imposed a secret ban. And you're criticising ArbCom for lack of transparency?

What's more, what's this stuff about a power play? If Jimmy wants to take over all ArbCom's responsibilities, he's welcome to. I'm actively campaigning in this election to shed many of them.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Roger and Risker, thanks for the responses; I've separated my commentary to hopefully interfere less with your discussion with MastCell. I share the views of II and MastCell on relatively benign practices like meditation (and I extend that to acupuncture), and I understand the behavioral issues that led to WBB's ban. I remain concerned that this discussion did appear to weigh in with respect to content, and am concerned that we have COI funding brought to bear in numerous other suites of medical articles where our content potentially has a more serious impact on human health.

I agree that you are one of the few arbs who has the perseverance, vision, professionalism, experience, and gravitas to bring reform where needed, hence I've voted for you. But my overriding concern is that, if something can't be done about COI editing with substantial backing from advocacy groups affecting our medical content, then the rest of what happens in here will become increasingly dangerous, not only in terms of the substantial harassment and outing issues raised in the TG ban appeal, but in terms of medical effect on hundreds of thousands of readers.

I can think of three possible outcomes to this dilemma (there are surely more): a) MEDRS is elevated to a policy more akin to BLP (recognizing that health information can have as much impact as BLP); b) a medical disclaimer is placed on our medical articles; c) experienced arbs aren't re-elected, they spend a year in the trenches realizing how very bad things are, ArbCom goes through a tumultuous period, and stronger arbs emerge to be elected or re-elected the next year. In other words, do things have to get much worse before they can get better? Just this week, in spite of my best attempts to engage sources, content, policy, guideline, and good-faith discussion on medical article talk pages, the editors adding poorly sourced content and original research-- generally from advocacy websites or primary sources in spite of the availability of voluminous secondary medical reviews-- simply responded with, basically, "we'll be back with reinforcements". And there is funding in that content realm for them to be back with significant reinforcement. Something needs to change, and the direction that COI could go relative to these past conversations with arbs in this realm concerns me. MEDRS may be only a guideline, but it is a guideline that informs WP:V policy; I hope to see strong support for that among arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, we're going backwards here. I revoted today to add more Supports (hearing the concerns expressed above by Risker and Roger), but this is getting me hot under the collar again:

There was no element of the COI that could not be applied to a goodly number of editors within WP:MED itself, not to mention hundreds of other editors throughout the project working on a huge range of topics. Stating that one should not edit in topic areas related to one's belief system would eliminate all Catholics from editing about the Pope, Jews from editing about the Torah or Chanukah, and so on; we don't want that, and in many cases these editors are actually the "experts". (Think about it: does anyone from WP:MED not hold beliefs about the effectiveness of treatments or procedures related to some of the articles they're editing?)

Risker, I'm not sure where you get "a goodly number of editors within WP:MED itself" or the generalizations about those editors and their beliefs. First, since when is adherence to our sourcing guidelines a "belief system" (other than a belief that if we edit Wikipedia, we should follow its guidelines and policies)? That is what was troubling about some of the statements made in discussions around that case. Second, a good number of the editors at WT:MED are laypersons such as Colin and myself, and I'm not aware of anyone pushing a POV to earn money-- much less pushing a POV in contradiction to our sourcing and behavioral guidelines. Third, whether laypeople or medical professionals, a good number of us do have "belief systems" that encompass things like meditation, acupuncture, or any number of areas of complementary and alternative medicine. We still edit within guideline and policy. I am surprised to see still statements equating adherence to guideline with beliefs about effectiveness of treatments. I, in fact, write stuff every day that I don't necessarily subscribe to (maybe my "belief" is that the research is behind), but I write it when it's what the most recent, highest quality secondary reviews say. And because, twenty years ago when I had a very young child in very very serious trouble after witnessing a most traumatic event, I turned to the internet and fed him St. John's Wort like it was candy. It's now known not to be candy, and people turning to the internet for medical advice is an area that concerns me.

This latest round of discussion is causing me even more concern. Do we really have arbs putting science and superstitution on the same plane, and saying that a small group of dedicated medical editors with very different backgrounds and beliefs are editing from a profit motive? This is what we hear every day from the quack/fringe/POV realm, when in fact, on the latest suite of articles I'm editing, sources address exactly where the profit motive is; between their money, and a friendly arbcom, it will be very difficult to neutralize medical text to reflect scientific evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. To amplify on this, from a personal perspective: there are specific articles where I have a conflict of interest (personal, not financial). I don't edit them. I think I could actually substantially improve our coverage of specific institutions, people, and medical concepts to which I have personal connections. But I don't edit them, because even though I believe I could do so neutrally, I think a reasonable third party could be concerned about my conflict of interest. The most disappointing thing here, to me, is the total lack of restraint by the TM accounts, and the incredibly low expectations and low level of accountability we accept from them. I raised my concerns directly with TimidGuy, although of course I didn't get a response. It is really disappointing to see people I respect—like Risker and Roger—conflating my handling of conflicts of interest with that of the TM editors. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Just so you know where I stand. You have my full support in any move to give extra BLP-like protection to medical content. It is important and without special measures is vulnerable in an environment which anyone can edit. I do not support any creep of WP:COI to legitimise outing. Outing and intimidation is despicable and reaching epidemic levels. I have been working to get the WMF to take a more active role in stamping it out.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger Davies. I recognize there is plenty those of us outside of the privileged ArbCom communications don't know about the outing aspects of that case, I agree that is an increasingly nasty problem facing Wikipedia, but I do hope that we don't have arbs equating science-based evidence with superstition, religion with rigor of editors who edit health content according to MEDRS and UNDUE, using high quality, evidence-based sources. If editing medical content according to MEDRS is POV, then I'm guilty as charged, and if that's a problem, I'm wasting my time in here. Thanks for clarifying, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

We might have to do a proper RfC on that one and get everyone to lay their cards on the table...including the WMF figuring out the legal and ethcial aspects and hoping the community listens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cas, an RFC on which aspect? I've been thinking about Roger's concerns on Outing, and I'm beginning to think that the much bigger problem in here is COI and paid editing. I'm cleaning up a paid-editor article now, and it's ticking me off, and it's the COI editors that are bringing this place down, while outing is still (fortunately) rather infrequent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I meant on the disclaimer template - I think my reply ended up in the wrong place. Agree COI needs working on. Some of it is subtle. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the disclaimer! Yes, after the holidays. And after we settle on a version and I place it on an where I'm the only significant contributor. Can't say the main editor will be offended there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

SG de

Did you know that in the German Wikipedia SG is short for "Schon gewusst?", the little sister of DYK, like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

On top of the hall, SG saw a mathematician, a sculptor and a women believed to be a witch, among others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

ALEC

RE this edit, I was thinking the exact same thing, ha! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Threats to escalate disruption and use sockpuppets

Are you aware of these threats by User:Orrerysky? They should be factored into the length of any blocks:

• "EdJohnston, please provide advise on how to make an escalation within your system. I would like to talk to your customer service department if possible or with someone in corporate. Bull is showing bias, has been uncooperative and misrepresenting events. Also, I don't mind taking a time out. This is not a threat, but merely a statement of good customer service. I would rather not have to create accounts and tunnel masked I.P.'s and make this a bigger issue. Let's get this issue resolved in a civil fashion. I want your escalation process sent. I want to talk to the service department for corporate. I deal with customer issues like this every day, I will call wikimedia's corporate office if necessary and raise all kinds of heck if I do not get a different admin to help administer this issue." (source)

These are threats to "escalate" his disruption (WP:BATTLE), use sockpuppets, and likely meatpuppets. Since one of the first things that happened after his block was a revert on the Plasma cosmology article by a new editor, long-term protection of Wikipedia may be necessary. Read the edit summary here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, they're so cute when they're new :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 04:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Does any of this interest you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, MastCell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Section Blanking Reason NPOV.The discussion is about the topic Cholangiocarcinoma. Thank you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing and the Foundation

I took the liberty of deploying your recent comment on Sue Gardner's talk page on my user page, where I already had a brief rant on why paid editing is a problem that needs to be dealt with by the Foundation. This used to be part of a much longer rant on paid editing, which I removed after concluding that I was working myself into a sweat about a problem that 1) I couldn't impact and 2) in which the people most directly affected were silent. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Help?

Hi there Mast Cell,

I noticed you worked a bit on ALEC, and bumped into Dr F. Because I have only short bits of time to spend on wiki, I am going to be very blunt. Something needs to be done about the fact that multiple editors across multiple articles are dealing with what I am going to call a spin doctor. I don't care about proving COI. We are not brain dead. "If it quacks like a duck" must come into play at some point, no? Anyway, please consider assisting at Edward Snowden where the Dr continues to play games. It seems he feels comfortable simply complaining. We are too nice to Snowden, or we have too much information about him and not enough of the government's stance.

Two things that struck me tonight: the US government considers Snowden an enemy, and is charging him with espionage, making the USG a most POV voice with regard to this article. Therefore, it is doubly prudent to look into whether the USG has - for whatever reason (good luck?) - an editor representing them, or editing and commenting in a way that looks identicle to someone who does. At the recent anti-paid editing discussions, I kept hearing that Wiki has a great response in its guidelines to POV editing, but frankly, unless some PR firm, or someone working in the US Senate building, gets busted red handed, I see no common sense action take place.

The other thing that struck me, when considering the consistent onslaught of the complaints, is that there might be an attempt simply to take time away that could be spent updating and doing needed work on the article, .

At the end of the day, it seems disrespectful to other wiki editors to allow this to go on. I still say, from my experience here of late, wiki seems to consist of around 90% spin doctors and/or über-conservative idiots (I am not referencing anyone specific with this comment). Thank you for your time, petrarchan47tc 11:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, I've been pretty impressed with DrFleischman where our paths have crossed. I think he's been a reasonable voice at American Legislative Exchange Council, and certainly more patient than I with some of the truly obvious agenda-driven (and likely COI) editors there. He's also been a (vanishingly rare) voice of sanity at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which tends to be dominated by ideologically driven editors convinced that Obamacare death panels are real. I haven't edited, or even looked at, the Snowden article, so I can't really comment on his work there.

I definitely sympathize with your frustration. Wikipedia's "rules" for resolving content disputes pretty much guarantee that you'll feel like you're banging your head against a wall. It's almost as if someone set out to devise the most counter-productive system possible, one guaranteed to burn out responsible editors and empower people in proportion to their obsessive irrationality. You're preaching to the choir there.

I'm not sure how I feel about Snowden's article. My gut instinct is that Wikipedia's culture and intellectual heritage (such as they are) are very much in the libertarian information-wants-to-be-free tradition, and thus Wikipedia's culture is more likely than not to be sympathetic to someone like Snowden. Given the scale of the US government's information-monitoring operation, it wouldn't surprise me if some tiny sliver of it was devoted to trying to influence Wikipedia, but I doubt that it would take the form of someone like DrFleischman, and I think Wikipedia's institutional bias is going to be pro-Snowden and thus likely a counterweight to any governmental efforts. But like I said, I haven't looked at the article or editors involved, so take all of that with a grain of salt. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell. I always get such grounded responses from you. petrarchan47tc 21:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, I just noticed this as I was notifying you of my COIN report. Thanks for the kind words. I don't know what Petrarchan47's beef is with me but I want to note that I consider his/her solicitation of you here inappropriate canvassing and an attempt to game the consensus-building process. Sorry to be such a downer. :-( --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

ALEC

Heads-up on this COIN report. I'm notifying you because of this comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. It seems glaringly obvious to me that Rebeccalutz has some sort of connection to ALEC and some sort of conflict of interest, but I have zero faith in Wikipedia's ability to handle COI issues. On the other hand, she's an edit-warring single-purpose agenda account, and that alone should be enough to trigger some sort of sanction. But often it's not. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If it gives you any hope, a COIN report I made over the summer eventually led to the COI editor getting indeffed. It was a long process though. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Roberts

I did not "insert" any BLP violation -- the material which had been removed had been in the article since 2008. I did now remove it per your objection, but the rest clearly does not violate BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You restored a gross BLP violation because it had already been in the article for a long time? And you're not responsible for the content of your edit because you were merely restoring a BLP violation rather than inserting it? Are you sure these are mitigating (as opposed to aggravating) factors?

As for "the rest", I think you know that Newsbusters is a piss-poor source for a WP:BLP, but I don't have the patience to argue with you about it. I'll settle for your grudging acquiescence in removing the unsourced accusation of unprofessional conduct against Roberts.

Frankly, I expect more from you because you frequently present yourself as a stalwart defender of WP:BLP. In that context, your revert (and, more so, your self-justification) are particularly disappointing. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all -- I am not convinced that it was a "gross BLP violation" as I found Okrent;s commentary [11][12][13] and an AJR article about Roberts and others [14] to be compelling about the NYT behaviour. What I did was to revert a "bold" edit where there was no discussion at all by the proponent for the full deletion of the commentary on the NYT. I read the talk page and found no suggestion that there had been any BLP concerns in the past -- I presume that you just happened upon it, but where no one had raised any issue in five years, I rather suspect that it was not a "hot issue" at all. And I demur that I edited "grudgingly" at all -- perhaps your usage of "grudgingly" and mine differ a tad. Collect (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to supply a reliable source at the time you insert (or re-insert) disparaging material about a living person. You don't put unsourced disparagement in the article and then defend it with sources you dug up at some later time point. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

WP:BLP states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. The anonymous IP was following policy; you were violating it. If you don't see the BLP violation here, then in my view you should immediately discontinue your role in "BLP enforcement" until you have a better understanding of this fundamental policy. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The material had been static for more than two years ... the sources appeared to meet RS and the sources which I just gave for your perusal are far more "disparaging" than the one you asked me to delete -- which I did instantly. At this point, I fear we have reached the Monty Python moment - and I decline to pay for an argument. As for your claim that I present myself as anything more than an editor who believes in following WP:BLP -- I find your comments to be a tad off-base. Cheers and have a great week. Collect (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Just going to point out my issue with your treatment of Collect here is that you are not extending any sort of grace or understanding. An IP with no other edits reverted sourced material with an edit summary basically ranting about undefined bias. If there were issues with the material that you noticed then the response should be to fix it and leave it at that. The impression here is that an admin who is generally seen as being on the "left" of the political aisle went after an editor generally seen as being on the "right" of the political aisle for something that most editors and admins have done in the past. He missed something a lot of editors and admins would miss when undoing a questionable IP edit. There is no good reason for you to rake him over the coals for it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. I certainly do. I think you'll find I'm capable of showing a great deal of grace and understanding toward people who own up to their mistakes with integrity. On the other hand, I'm bothered when someone evades responsibility for their mistakes and blames the person who corrected them. I'm even more bothered by hypocrisy, which is unfortunate since it's like oxygen on Wikipedia. If you constantly beat your chest about your commitment to BLP, then I expect you to spend 10 seconds verifying sources before restoring disparaging commentary about a living person, and I definitely expect you to take responsibility if you inadvertently restore a clear BLP violation.

I'm not sure what to say about your concern over political bias. Tell you what: next time you see a "leftist" editor restoring blatant BLP violations and then being combative and evasive when called on it, let me know and I'll take care of it, notwithstanding my personal ideological commitment to fomenting a world socialist revolution. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Had you shown even the slightest amount of respect for Collect when raising your concerns, or had just made the edit and left it at that, then he may have been more conciliatory. I have a feeling if the editor had been someone whom you felt shared your political tendencies then you would have given that person a chance and not jumped on them first thing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I suspect it would be useless to try to convince you otherwise, let's leave things there. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not "on the right of the political aisle" at all -- I was raised as a "Rockefeller Republican" and friends with Lowell Weicker etc. while my uncle was a friend of JFK etc. Anyone who views this as "right wing" has a very poor sense of direction. I really would like this type of name calling to cease. In fact, I was called "left wing" by some folks for my edits on Johann Hari and some Australian politicians <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

You always have the best quotes. #4 is both funny and sad at the same time. Yobol (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The truth is often funny and sad. Anyhow, thanks for the kind words. Speaking of quotes, since The Devil's Advocate has me pegged as a leftist, I added a manifesto. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Come help the damn revolution come quicker from Bishzilla's pocket ! Laugh, love, fuck, and drink liquor in Poets' Corner! bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC).

Inviting editors to help with research

So you can see, Mast Cell, it is a tricky and time-consuming subject to cover in a good way. As I've said, I certainly can't do the fact checking and research for big picture/context for the whole slew of articles by myself, so have invited one researcher, and another armchair researcher, to help out. I wanted to check in about how to be completely above board and legal, obviously, and how to welcome and help educate them on all they'll need to know. I've never helped a new person become an editor, and feel like a newbie myself, frankly, especially when it comes to understanding the guidelines with regard to need for and proper use of MEDRS. I think it would help all of the editors working on this matter to get very clear about the boundaries for MEDRS. (Should our coverage of the history of the DEA and cannabis law in the US use only MEDRS sources? I don't think so, but am being told MEDRS is required even for that.)

I'll ask the two new editors to state on their page that they were asked to help with this specific subject by me, does that sound kosher? What else do we need to know? Maybe Project Medicine has someone who welcomes and helps school newbies on MEDRS? Thanks again for your continued guidance, it's most appreciated. petrarchan47tc 22:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A good starting place, Petrarchan47, might be to start telling the truth. You have not been told that "MEDRS is required even for ... coverage of the history of the DEA and cannabis law"; you have been told that since we have high quality recent secondary journal reviews that cover those topics, you need not resort to inferior sources like TV commentators and advocacy websites. And then you were told that again.

For your friends that are going to begin editing, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches would be a good thing to point them at, in addition to WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. You might also want to give them this tool, which generates a cite journal template from a PubMed identifier (hopefully they will know what a PMID is if they are planning to work on medical content). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought, at first, (since I was clearly addressing Mast Cell specifically), that he was calling me a liar. Finally I got to the end of the note, and see it signed by you. Tell me how I've misinterpreted the following, please:

About DEA history:

Petra: "Sanjay also covered this, "I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse....They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn't have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works...We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States...On August 14, 1970, the Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Roger O. Egeberg wrote a letter recommending the plant, marijuana, be classified as a schedule 1 substance, and it has remained that way for nearly 45 years. My research started with a careful reading of that decades old letter. What I found was unsettling. Egeberg had carefully chosen his words:

"Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule 1 at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."

Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was classified as a schedule 1 substance. Again, the year was 1970. Egeberg mentions studies that are underway, but many were never completed. As my investigation continued, however, I realized Egeberg did in fact have important research already available to him, some of it from more than 25 years earlier." CNN. petrarchan47tc 17:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandy: All of that history is covered in secondary reviews, and there is no need to cite CNN or a television personality. Could you please engage the WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary reviews? Many have free full text (see User:SandyGeorgia/Cannabis sources for some). Doing so will save us all time (and space on talk) and get the job done here more quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS has nothing to do with history, and "better sources" is completely subjective and should not continue to be presented as fact. (Thank you for the other advice, I'll take it) :) petrarchan47tc 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen MastCell call someone something as unsavory and ordinary as a "liar"; he has a much more precise way of defining problematic personalities on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to MastCell for polemicising on his page, but Petra, WP:MEDRS is not an alternative to WP:RS; it is an extension of it. It is what RS would be if there were a wealth of high-quality secondary sources available for every topic. RS asks the same level of diligence in choosing the best sources as MEDRS does: where respected scholarly journals are available, use them; where peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources exist, use them; take care using primary sources; never use a primary source to rebut a good secondary source. Look at WP:RS #Some types of sources and WP:RS #Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to see what MEDRS is founded on. You are utterly wrong to think that finding better sources is completely subjective - "better sources" is exactly what WP:RS shows us how to find - and that is why I suspect that you are having problems. Once you can see what WP:RS wants from us, you will stop worrying about whether MEDRS applies to this or that section of an article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC user mastcell

A talk page requesting RfC user mastcell has been made

Maybe some third party eyes will help . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#request for comment user mastcell. Baby sitting articles - though I suspect that 1zeroate is soon going to regret bringing his behaviour to our attention... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#novocure

Why do you assume that instead of good faith? Thats terrible. I have all sorts of regrets but to assume I will be what you say.. On his talk page no less..... I got others to notify . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your AN/I post is full of personal attacks and assumes the worst possible motivations on my part. Do you see absolutely no sense of irony in lecturing others about "assuming good faith"? Actually, never mind. I think I know the answer.

Andy, this editor is disruptively removing reliable sources and replacing them with {{citation needed}} tags (e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18]). I think we both know this will be allowed to go on indefinitely. I don't have the patience to try to explain how Wikipedia works, nor do I think that doing so is likely to be a good investment of anyone's time. My experience is that when someone comes to Wikipedia solely to right great wrongs, no amount of alchemy can transform them into someone who takes seriously this site's encyclopedic mission and policies. I have slightly more interest in this editor's claims about Novocure, a fascinating device, but I should emphasize that I am aware of no serious, reputable source which links Novocure to the fraudulent quackery of "Rife devices", nor to Rife himself. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Between the COMPETENCE issues, and the personal attacks, it's hard to figure out what this editor is saying. I am watchlisting Royal Rife and Novocure, because I can't decipher where to start with this editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1zeroate has now been blocked indefinitely by User:John. [19] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Irregular verbs

I wanted to make sure you saw this lovely line on factionalism:

"It's an irregular verb:

I work with colleagues I trust;

You are in a faction;

They are in a TAG-TEAMING CONSPIRACY."

I'm thinking that there are many more of these irregular verbs on the English Wikipedia. Perhaps:

• I write encyclopedia articles about notable subjects.
• You create pages about unimportant things.
• They are engaged in self-promotion.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. These conjugations usefully encapsulate the hypocrisy which permeates Wikipedia like oxygen. (Was that too negative? I'm not really that grumpy, just tired). There are many more, some of which I'm stealing paraphrasing without attribution here, since I can't remember who first formulated them:

• I call a spade a spade. You are uncivil.
• I ignore all rules. You act abusively and out of process.

... and so on... By the way, always good to hear from you, and I hope things are going OK. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I contact people who are interested in this subject.
• You violate CANVAS.
• They spam.

All's well with me, so long as I don't look at my to-do list or compare the date to my Christmas shopping list.

I think we need a page at Wikipedia:Irregular verbs on Wikipedia to collect these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "novocure". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Some questions for a senior wikipedian

As a senior Wikipedian supportive of the recent indefinite banning of a user for defending what appears to be Wikipedia core values, I would like to ask you a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers.

1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions?

2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say?

3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say, for example, that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support?

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

David F. Haight, [20] Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.” [21]

Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”.[22]

Adam Lucas, [23] writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise."

But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work:

Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature.[24]

Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today.[25]

Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post [26]

Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post [27]

Rudolph E. Tanzi,[28] Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post [29]

Neil Theise,[30] Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post [31]

All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose

Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake.

David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision

Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics

Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist [32]

Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian [33]

Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science

John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex

A final point

One other similar area where the sources are overwhelming concerns the well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact that Sheldrake is a biologist - a fact which his constantly removed. [34] contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. [35] [36] [37] [38]

Again, then, I would be grateful if you could answer the specific questions above in relation to this particular content.

I eagerly await your response. Thanks Barleybannocks (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... it's a little too cold for pina coladas here in the Northern hemisphere, but someone did buy me an extra-large bottle of Don Julio's finest for Christmas (I'm easy to shop for). Cheers - always good to hear from you, and I hope things are going OK. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what's in the box?

This is the expression Darwinbish wears when she anticipates the opening of the box.

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers.

• Thanks! I'm afraid I didn't get you anything, though. MastCell ^Talk 01:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Einstein syndrome

Why/how was this article recreated after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein syndrome ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Presumably no one noticed. I've speedy-deleted it under WP:CSD#G4. MastCell ^Talk 05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Alfonzo Green AE case...

Hi MastCell, regarding my closure here of the AE case regarding Alfonzo Green, it was brought to my attention that perhaps enough time wasn't given for further consideration of Alfonzo's comments due to the holiday yesterday. Did you have any intent on making a substantive change in your position regarding that case after Alfonzo's comments and before my closure? Please let me know if so... Thanks. Zad68 21:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a good close. Alfonzo's later commentary made me more sure, if anything, that a topic ban was appropriate. Your conscientiousness does you credit. MastCell ^Talk 02:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... an optimist might see my willingness to follow up on the request as genuine conscientiousness and an assumption of good faith; a cynic might say that it was done simply to close that one door firmly in case of an appeal. But who's cynical these days? Zad68 15:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be shocked if an appeal succeeded either way. These Sheldrake cases aren't anywhere near borderline calls—it only seems that way because of the volume of verbiage at WP:AE. Since you mention cynicism, we're witnessing rule #17 in action here. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And in case you hadn't seen, this... Zad68 15:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Belchfire? Not

I suggest that a block based on what you "think" is true where sufficient evidence has been given otherwise would be improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more-likely-than-not that Roccodrift is Belchfire, although far from a slam dunk. But the question is moot from a practical point of view. Roccodrift is clearly the alternate account of an experienced Wikipedian, and the Roccodrift account is largely or solely dedicated to ideologically driven editing on controversial political topics. In the best case—accepting that Roccodrift isn't Belchfire—this alternate account usage is still inappropriate, because you can't use an alternate account to "segregate" controversial edits and feuds.

That's the point I tried to make in my comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire; this account is being used improperly whether or not Belchfire is the one operating it. I'd be fine with "soft-blocking" the account, so that its owner can return to editing with his/her main account. But I'm not OK with an editor using an alternate account to dive into partisan topics while maintaining a "clean" reputation with their main account.

In any case, I have no interest in acting hastily or unilaterally, which is why I invited comment and feedback from other admins rather than simply closing the case myself. To return to your comment: which evidence do you believe is sufficient to disprove sockpuppetry? MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		May you and yours enjoy a healthful, happy and productive 2014! And I hope to see you more active! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A gift for you

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		To MastCell, I give you this award for your long-term service to Wikipedia as an editor and an administrator; you've done excellent work, have sound judgment and are highly fair. While we have had few interactions, my observations of you over the years have always been positive. Thank you for everything that you do. Acalamari 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That's very kind of you, and much appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome; you deserve it. Acalamari 23:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading comment

Please strike through the following comment: "and which even its originator admits is simply a continuation of his original, disruptive argumentation." Nowhere do I admit to engaging in "disruptive argumentation," either now or at any time prior. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your appeal pretty clearly focuses on restating your content arguments, combined with a rather melodramatic framing of your situation as a battle between the forces of Integrity vs. Corruption. That's not an appeal in any traditional sense of the word. It's more digging in and re-drawing battle lines, and I think you've been pretty clear that such is your intent. Of course, the characterization of your argumentation as "disruptive" is mine, not yours, so in the interest of clarity I will go ahead and strike that portion of my comment. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Note about accounts

I was reading this comment (saying that Roccodrift "should be using his/her main account, rather than using this account to segregate agenda-driven edits...") and I just thought I'd clarify that the main account has been indeffed for almost a year...As best as I remember they had edit warring problems and kept getting escalating block lengths until they started socking to evade the blocks, which led to the indef. Anyway, whether it's him or someone else, I think the main charge is block evasion, not sock puppetry. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree that if we believe Roccodrift is Belchfire, then the issue is block evasion and Roccodrift should be indefinitely blocked. I should have been clearer in my comment—I meant that if we give Roccodrift the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's not Belchfire, then he's still the alternate account of an experienced Wikipedian. Assuming the editor's original account isn't blocked, s/he should be using that account. I was getting at the "best-case" scenario, and the fact that even if Roccodrift isn't Belchfire, the account is still being used improperly and its operator should cease segregating his/her controversial edits. Does that make sense? Sorry for the confusion, and always good to hear from you. MastCell ^Talk 17:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I suppose another "best-case" scenario would be if it were someone's fresh start account, though they're probably doing a poor job of it if that is the case. Thanks for the reply - I'll fully support whatever action you choose to take here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bleh, I started this comment a few hours ago and just now came back to finish it and hit "Save". Should have checked my watchlist first I suppose. Thanks for following through. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries - I'm sorry it took a month for that SPI to be reviewed and handled. MastCell ^Talk 02:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ayup

"In addition, as I have stated more than once, I do not have a conflict of interest on the TM topic and I always edit with WP's best interests foremost in my mind." Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That is a frankly outrageous statement. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert on abortion page

Hi MastCell,

You recently reverted my edits to the abortion page. I know in your edit summary you briefly explained why you did so but I have a couple of questions.

1. Are you saying that Knights of Columbus is a low-quality poll? If so, why? Washingtonexaminer.com published the article as well as newsok.com, both of which seem like reliable sources.

2. Is it necessarily my job to include the "public opinion outside this one poll"? Instead of reverting my edit, why can't we include all polls that summarize public opinion on this topic?

3. The research I added clearly states that the poll was conducted in the US and is not making a generalized claim that applies to the whole world. I understand this is "US-centric" but the page already includes content that deals specifically with the US. Why can this content keep but not the research I included? Below is information concerning the US from the Abortion page.

"In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 14 times safer than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births). The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation."

"The Guttmacher Institute estimated there were 2,200 intact dilation and extraction procedures in the US during 2000; this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year."

"In the US, abortion was more dangerous than childbirth until about 1930 when incremental improvements in abortion procedures relative to childbirth made abortion safer."

My understanding is that we should include other polls and public opinions on this topic, not just the US. Let me hear your thoughts. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the Washington Examiner as a low-quality source. It's a partisan outlet without a particularly strong reputation for journalism. I also think the poll in question was being given undue weight. It was conducted by the Knights of Columbus—a Catholic pro-life advocacy group with no standing as a polling organization or as a public-health/public-policy research group. Why did you choose this one particular poll (of the hundreds that are available) to feature prominently in the article?

If we choose to summarize public opinion about abortion, then the top-level article is abortion debate, not abortion. If we're summarizing US public opinion, then abortion in the United States might be an appropriate target. However, in any of these articles, it's important to provide a comprehensive overview of reputable polling results rather than highlighting a single poll by a partisan group.

It's probably worth moving any further discussion to the relevant article talkpages, so that others can participate as well. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I chose this article in particular because I was reading through the news this morning and the Washington Examiner article struck my attention. It popped up on my news feed and after reading it I thought it would be good information to add to the Abortion page. I understand the Knights of Columbus is a Catholic pro-life advocacy group; I just thought the information was notable enough to include. Your reasoning for reverting my edit makes much more sense now. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reply to me at the RfA

I saw what you said only after the RfA was withdrawn and closed, and I figure that courtesy indicates that I ought to reply to you here. Of course it's all moot now, but at the time of my comment to which you replied, I had understood it as editing from the same area, but not the same computer. If it actually were the same computer, that would probably have bumped me into oppose. Anyway, thanks for your attention to the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My comment was based on this report, indicating that he shared a computer (or Internet access point) with at least 12 other accounts, many of whom edit in tandem on TM-related articles and many of whom block-voted to oppose James' RfA. There were several more TM-focused accounts editing from the same area, but without direct IP matches. As I mentioned in my comments, this level of evidence is well above our threshold for defining meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. At an absolute minimum, these accounts should be treated as one single voice for purposes of assessing consensus and !voting. But I've given up trying to understand why our usual rules and best practices are suspended when it comes to dealing with this particular topic area.

I was actually a little surprised that other commentators at the RfA attached so much significance to the multiple-accounts issue. I included it as a genuine concern, but I thought the much bigger issue was the outright denial of a very obvious conflict of interest. Compared to that, the tag-team editing was almost an afterthought, at least to me. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I had read that same SPI report; maybe I missed something. It bothered me, based only on what I could read at the RfA, that people were alleging a COI without proving it, and then objecting when he denied that the COI existed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal had a very real chilling effect on our ability to discuss conflicts of interest. To the extent that people were beating around the bush, it's because of the message that ArbCom sent in that case. It's a real no-win situation: risk being banned for "proving" the COI, or stand accused as a mean-spirited well-poisoner for mentioning the COI and then failing to "prove" it. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and I hadn't followed that ban appeal. I have seen incidents of COI accusations made falsely, used to try to get the upper hand in POV disputes, so I'm predisposed to want to see, simply, evidence of POV pushing in lieu of COI accusations. It bothered me that, at the RfA, there weren't better diffs of pro-TM (or whatever) POV-pushing. The diffs I saw were pretty bland. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose my perspective is different: I've seen several instances where blatant COI editors have been enabled while the people raising red flags have caught a beat-down. I didn't see any dramatic diffs of POV-pushing at the RfA, but I didn't need to. Our guidelines state that as a best practice, editors with a COI should restrict themselves to the talkpage. They don't say "go ahead and make a few thousand edits in your area of COI, and then see whether anyone can conclusively identify a POV-pushing diff". I think it's reasonable to expect admin candidates to follow best practices, or at least not to blatantly flout them. We should especially demand COI best practices from a collection of TM-affiliated accounts who happen to edit in tandem from the same computer.

Likewise, Keithbob's refusal to acknowledge his COI was unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. If someone categorically denies the existence of a COI which clearly exists, then I don't even need to get into the question of POV-pushing—they're not honest enough for me to feel comfortable anywhere but in the "oppose" column. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the interesting discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, this was very specifically investigated during the initial TM case, and it turned out that these editors used the same small local ISP. There was no overlap except for the local Wifi coffee-shop/bookstore. I'm still really, really sad that people I respect a good deal didn't understand that the problem in the TimidGuy ban appeal was outing and extensive off-wiki sleuthing, backdoor political manoeuvring, and secret bans, and that if the shoe had been on the other foot they would reasonably have taken an exactly opposite position. In TimidGuy's case, his COI was declared onwiki, so justification for taking such action was dodgy, especially by an editor who had been subjected to similar sleuthing in the past, and who had successfully managed to get his "investigators" banned. It had nothing at all do do with medical content. Incidentally, one could wonder about the COI of editors who hold fervent but diametrically opposite beliefs, and whether they have a conflict of interest as well; for example, if someone consistently adds only negative information to articles relating to a specific topic area, sometimes to the point of undue weight, perhaps their COI is just as real as those editors who add only positive information to the same articles. Neither party is being neutral. I have no specific thoughts about Keithbob's RFA, since I didn't even know it had happened, although I do understand the COI point. I will say that I've seen terribly poor behaviour from some editors working in their scientific speciality over the years, and being a subject matter expert doesn't prevent that. Wikiproject Medicine has been better than many others in this respect, with fewer problems and much better standards for inclusion of information. Other fields, however, have been and continue to be a nightmare of ownership and often significant BLP violations. But meh, not my problem anymore. Risker (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• So if they shared the same small local ISP and also all conveniently showed up to vote at the same RfA, which most (all?) of them generally never participate in. Why that doesn't raise a concern? I'm guessing they all share the same interest in Transcendental Meditation as well - that doesn't raise a concern? In addition, regardless of whether there is a conflict of interest, there is something a little troubling about focusing so much on a single topic, and particularly a topic like TM. Scholarly dispassion is very difficult to develop, and it is certainly unrealistic to expect it from everyone (or even from all administrators), but it is more difficult to develop if one doesn't step outside their passion zone very often. That's not to say that Keithbob isn't working outside these areas, but he should just explain what his relationship to the topic is. He's not required to, I suppose, but no one is required to vote for him, either. II | (t - c) 03:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's a bit of a canard, actually; it would actually surprise me if someone who'd just a few months before taken a large group of editors to arbitration wasn't opposed by those whom he'd taken to RFAR. (Actually, look at several of the opposes, and you'll see the opposite effect on Keithbob's RFA. I personally am not shocked or disturbed by that, and I rather doubt you are either.) You realise that they openly state that they're from the town where the TM university is, right? That more than half of the community there is somehow or other involved in TM? It's kind of like edits from Vatican City to articles about the Catholic Church, except of course that we tend to welcome those. Risker (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Risker: I think that if a group of 5 or 6 opposers at Keithbob's RfA turned out to share an IP address (and a narrow topic focus), people would scream bloody murder - and rightly so. OK, I shouldn't have brought up the ArbCom case, which is a can of worms best sealed at this point. I'll just say that I do understand the issues with WillBeback's conduct. I'm not defending him. At all. In fact, I sort of wish no one would ever mention his name again, because he's basically a boogeyman at this point whose mere mention derails any serious discussion of the very real COI editing here. My fault for raising the case in the first place.
  I do have a serious question, though. At his RfA, Keithbob said, categorically: "as I have stated more than once, I do not have a conflict of interest on the TM topic". Do you think that's an honest statement? (Obviously, I don't, but I'm interested in your opinion as someone whom I respect and who sees this issue differently than I do). MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant ISP (service provider) and not IP; there wasn't IP sharing except for the local bookstore/coffee-shop. There are several areas throughout the US where small, local ISPs get the lion's share of local business, because they're usually cheaper and the owners are highly community-oriented. Risker (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the COI issue is a very, very grey area here. Personally, I think that there's been a huge conflation of "personal, strong interest" with the more financially-oriented "conflict of interest" as it's defined our guidelines. In my mind, if Keithbob has a conflict of interest on TM, something that he openly follows, then so does the editor who believes that all new religious movements are frauds. Neither of them is gaining any financial benefit from their views on the subject (so technically neither would be violating our current COI guidelines), although either or both of them could make a mess of an article if they cannot write neutrally. I believe that most editors believe that they write neutrally all the time, and that most are probably wrong about that, and most are simply unconscious to how their editing reflects their own biases. I believe that there are certain editing techniques that are particularly effective in introducing bias into articles in a lasting way, and that those techniques are not usually seen in editors who have a clearly identifiable topic area in which they have an interest. I think that the COI that we've seen in a lot of the paid advocacy editing stands out because it's so obvious. And I think that, just as the reference you mention on your user page, people believe what they want to believe, and many will believe it even more strongly despite being given solid information that they're wrong. I think that, given a bit of personal information about any given editor, I could probably point to edits that would (at least to some people) cross the boundary into COI - and I can practically guarantee it for anyone who is editing in their area of professional or personal expertise. We don't ask Christians or Jews or Muslims not to edit the articles about their faith or suggest they have a COI for doing so, and that same standard has to apply to people of other faiths too. We also don't tell people who believe all religion is hooey not to edit articles about any religion. (Nothing made me sadder than to see a respected scientist's BLP turned into a disaster area by using her religious beliefs to ridicule her position on a certain subject.) We ask all of them to edit the articles neutrally and without bias, sticking to fact-based information and giving it appropriate weight and sourcing. I think it is vitally important to the health of Wikipedia that experts edit within their field, even if there's the risk that someone might think there's a conflict - and I think it's also vitally important that non-experts edit the same articles so that they'll remain accessible to the average reader. I think we need to get back to worrying about the content of the edits and cut back on the investment of time and energy in trying to discern so much about the personal beliefs, life experiences, and financial resources of the people who make them. That kind of conflict of interest (however defined) is endemic to the project and has been present since its earliest days - and I'm not persuaded we're seeing any changes in the frequency or severity of the issue today. I suspect that over the years there's been a fairly persistent 1-2% of articles that are biased because of conflicts of interest. And finally, I think it would be a lot easier to manage advocacy editing if we were to raise the notability bar a few notches, because right now it's so low that we're almost begging for articles like that to be created.
  Oh my, that's quite a rant, isn't it? Thanks for letting me get it off my chest... Risker (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries - you're always welcome to speak your mind here. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but it seems beside the point. Keithbob's COI is no less real because of the existence of anti-new-religious-movement editors (in any case, the only "anti-NRM" editor I can think of, WillBeback, is permabanned, so I don't see an issue with equivalence).

And I think the comparison to Christians/Jews/Muslims is off-base, for a very simple reason. Those are religions. TM has a religious aspect (about which I could care less and which I have never touched with a ten-foot pole), but it's also a proprietary product marketed by a single corporation, with a discrete price tag, and with claims of specific medical benefits. People who work for the TM organization or who sell TM should not be editing Wikipedia to promote its purported health benefits. That's nowhere near a gray area to me. How is that any different from an employee of Merck, or a person who makes his living selling Merck products, editing Wikipedia to promote the purported effectiveness of Merck's drugs? (That's not a rhetorical question; I view these situations as analogous, and if you don't then I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint).

On a separate note, I keep hearing the TM editors described as polite, reasonable, fantastic editors (one of your erstwhile colleagues on the Committee even compared them to Martin Luther King, Jr., which left me speechless). If that's the case, then why don't we expect them to follow our best practices on COI? At least some of these accounts clearly should not be editing in articlespace on the topic. Why don't we expect, or demand, that they have the integrity to follow our best practices rather than looking for wiggle room in the letter of the law? MastCell ^Talk 07:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Risker, you wrote: "Incidentally, one could wonder about the COI of editors who hold fervent but diametrically opposite beliefs, and whether they have a conflict of interest as well; for example, if someone consistently adds only negative information to articles relating to a specific topic area, sometimes to the point of undue weight, perhaps their COI is just as real as those editors who add only positive information to the same articles. Neither party is being neutral." The problem here is only if this editor takes the negative within the article "to the point of undue weight" and not whether they "consistently add only negative information". Because being neutral isn't about balancing the good and bad viewpoints evenly. I hope you understand that, unlike the BBC, say, who still haven't got their head round it. If our best sources are negative on a subject then negative is how our articles should be and neutral edits in that area would generally be negative. The issue with TM isn't about beliefs where good people can agree to disagree, but about medical claims that are testable. -- Colin°^Talk 08:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What he said. Also, Risker,

1. "I suspect that over the years there's been a fairly persistent 1-2% of articles that are biased because of conflicts of interest."
2. "And finally, I think it would be a lot easier to manage advocacy editing if we were to raise the notability bar a few notches, because right now it's so low that we're almost begging for articles like that to be created."

1. Why do you think the POV articles are such a low percentage? I'd put it much higher.
2. Yes, yes, yes ... the use of primary sources to promote medical topics is alarming. Where/how can we work to raise the notability bar in here? Casliber has had some success recently at AFD; if you know of any efforts to work on this issue, pls bring 'em on!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Risker: Colin's and Sandy's comments bring up another thing that's really bothered me about the handling of this situation. These disputes are constantly framed as "pro-TM" accounts vs. "anti-TM" accounts. That's hogwash. At bottom, this is a dispute between pro-TM accounts (many of whom have real conflicts of interest by any reasonable definition) and the ever-shrinking group of editors who struggle to produce and maintain high-quality, accurate medical information on this site. We're talking about people like Colin, Sandy, Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs), Zad68 (talk · contribs)... these people have stellar track records on medical content, and no pre-existing axe to grind about TM. They don't deserve to be dismissed as "anti-TM" editors or anti-religious zealots, nor do they deserve to be equated with single-purpose agenda accounts editing from the coffee shop next to TM headquarters. They deserve our support, and they're not getting it, and that bothers me—a lot—because of what it says about this site's priorities. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Substitute the word "cannabis" for "TM" in your post, and you have the picture of the latest anti-RS charges because some of us simply attempted to remove primary sources and original research and replace those with secondary reviews. There is too much to keep up with. Or, substitute the word "circumcision" for "TM", where same occurred. It never occurred to those lobbing charges of bias that my personal preferences on circumcision aligned with theirs, and they were unable to conduct a discussion based on sources no matter how often I asked. As MastCell mentions, there is an old concern that some arbs don't respect that some editors can bring sourcing to a discussion without the emotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like everyone is getting hot under the collar...I know, what about a spot of Emotional clearing (chuckle) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

.....furthering on Sandy's point, which is again why having content editors on the committee brought some perspectives at times that other arbs that didn't do a great deal of content work missed....sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll get my "emotional clearing" in two to four weeks, when the next crop of student editing hits, and I take a long break so I don't have to see it clobber my watchlist. I already raised my children, and they knew how to write before they graduated high school. Cas, are you becoming a niche AFDer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading all of this about COIs and so on with respect to the TM pages, I'm starting to understand more of the issues that I wasn't aware of before. First, disclosure time here: I don't have any financial conflict of interest as I am unemployed, living on food stamps at teh level reserved for people with zero income, and any income I hid from you from the TM organization would be used against me in legal proceedings for fraudulently obtaining food stamps. Now, emotionally, I have clear biases: I have been practicing TM for 40+ years, and am a well known TM advocate (at least in my own mind) on a first-name basis with most of the upper level of the TM organization (at least in the USA) simply by being a 40 year TMer. That said, I pride myself on trying to be as honest as possible. Should I refrain from posting, even in the talk page?

Regarding the specifics of all this stuff about shared coffeehouse internet access. It sounds plausible to me. About 30 years ago, the TM founder, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, put out a call for 7,000 people to meditate together every day, in order to bring about world peace via group meditation. Over the years, about 2,000 of the most ultra-fanatical TMers have moved to the middle of nowhere, AKA, "Fairfield, IA," in order to meditate together every day. Many receive/have received a monthly stipend from the Howard Settle Foundation in order to allow them to devote 8 hours a day to this group meditation practice. Obviously, such a group of hardcore true believers would be prone to have a very lock-step view of TM, and given that many are living in low-cost quarters, since they have chosen to make meditation their "full time job," they would end up using public internet access to express themselves. It sounds like this is, at least somewhat, how the situation has arisen. Does this sound right? I can see how such people would be considered to have a clear COI. However, is it any worse than mine? Having outed myself as a hardcore fanatic with 40 years practice, should I be banned as well? Sparaig2 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your honesty. I really appreciate it - seriously. The scenario you describe makes sense to me. To answer your question, I don't think you should be banned by any means. I do think it makes sense for you (and for the editors you describe above as "ultra-fanatical") to comply with the best practices described in the COI guideline and the associated best-practices essay. That would mean, among other things, being upfront about their associations, refraining from editing articles directly (instead making suggestions on article talkpages), and perhaps most importantly not pushing too hard for favorable coverage. You deserve real credit because you're actually already living up to these best practices - you've been upfront, and you've restricted yourself for the most part to talk pages. You're doing things the right way. Unfortunately I think a number of other editors have been less scrupulous, and that's where my frustration comes from.

On a separate note, I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your straitened financial circumstances, and I hope they improve soon. I also hope that you haven't been hurt by the recent wave of cuts in food assistance which seems to be sweeping the nation. And thank you again for your honesty and your comments here. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind thoughts. I'm doing OK with the slight dip in food stamp money, but I can borrow a vehicle when I need to go shopping, and a friend put me on her Costco card account, so the food stamp money goes quite far when you can purchase in-bulk. The people who are hurting are those who have to walk to the local "convenience store" and pay as much as 5x what I do for the same amount of food, especially if they don't have a refrigerator.

On the topic of "ultra-fanatical," that is a bit of "tongue-in-cheek" rhetoric on my part. "Committed to a cause" is certainly a valid way of describing them, but the cause they are committed to is world peace, and the method they have chosen to use for that end is to attempt to become enlightened by devoting much of their time to group meditation. Regardless of any purported violations of Wikipedia policy that they may have ended up committing, these are very nice people™ who have often scarified a good bit (some have moved 10,000 miles from other countries and/or given up high-paying jobs) in order to participate in the group meditation as a permanent resident of a tiny Iowa town often described as "20 miles northeast of where Radar O'Reilly was born" --when you use the obscure birthplace of a movie character as a reference to find somewhere, you KNOW it is off-the-map. Sparaig2 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you're making things work, and I hope they get better soon. Re: "ultra-fanatical", I totally get your point, and that you were being tongue-in-cheek, and not derogatory, about their devotion to the movement. I'm not in the habit of denigrating anyone's religious or spiritual beliefs, especially when their focus is peace and harmony, and I hope it didn't come off that way. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I decided to look back here, and it continues to be very interesting to me. Although I never followed the TimidGuy case, my overall experiences with conflicts over COI make me see things much as Risker does. And it comes from some experiences that relate in an interesting way to some things SandyGeorgia referred to. I was a mostly quiet observer of the cannabis dispute to which Sandy refers, and a big part of the reason is that I had, just a few months earlier, found myself in another dispute, for which you could substitute "Monsanto" for "TM" – and the same group of editors who were in dispute with the WikiProject Medicine editors with respect to cannabis had just been incredibly mean-spirited in the Monsanto dispute (one of them got a three-month block). But here's the thing. The editors who were, in my opinion, tendentious in both disputes were the ones making COI accusations. In cannabis, they accused the editors who are physicians of having a COI by virtue of being physicians. In the Monsanto dispute, they accused anyone who questioned harsh criticism of genetically modified food crops of being paid by Monsanto. I've been around here long enough now that no one was quite willing to level that accusation at me, but the stuff that was said to some younger editors really appalled me. One such younger editor actually went so far as to report himself at WP:COIN, and got an oversighter to confidentially look into who he is in real life, and definitively exonerate him from the COI accusations. And the accusations continued nonetheless! It was like, either you are here to right great wrongs, or somebody is paying you to edit. That's why in the RfA, I felt that there needed to be diffs showing actual POV pushing, because editing from "the same small local ISP. There was no overlap except for the local Wifi coffee-shop/bookstore", quoting Risker – and not, apparently, from the same computer – did not seem to me to establish COI editing, unless the edits themselves were pushing a POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The sad part about the mean-spiritedness that surfaced in the cannabis editing is that it stopped productive work in its tracks. It was just absurd to have to deal with all the charges being lobbed about, and the TLDR posts that didn't engage sources at all. It's almost as if some editors learn that if others can be worn down, changes won't be made. The funny part is that it never occurred to some of those lobbing those COI charges that some of the WPMED physicians might be themselves prescribing medical marijuana, at the same time that they are quite capable of knowing how to source articles correctly.

On a complete tangent, thinking about some of the abuse we put up during the cannabis editing (and I never saw a WPMED person return the favor), this week I observed a new editor (who admittedly was an SPA and having a hard time figuring things out, and breaking all the rules, but he was trying, and each time he was warned about something, he stopped) get indeffed two days after he stopped doing what he was doing that got him a last warning, and then the blocking admin was the same admin who reviewed his unblock request and declined it (shouldn't that be done by an uninvolved admin?). I'm not taking this to the drama boards, but watching it unfold, I couldn't help but be reminded that a new editor got quickly indeffed, yet of the outright abuse the WPMED editors endured during cannabis article editing, and that no one said a word to the abusing parties. Weird place, this ... I'm reminded of something MastCell said once about doing as much good work as you can until you can't anymore. When the next student term hits, I'll take a long break, having done what I can do in the meantime, but leaving a lot of work undone. In particular, cannabis is still a mess, and most of our articles haven't been updated for DSM5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I too share your concern about personal attacks. Collaborative editing becomes impossible because the attacks poison the well and atmosphere to such a degree that experienced and qualified editors avoid certain topics. I avoid the right wing topics because of the strong ownership exerted by editors like Arzel and cohorts, whose only purpose seems to be to whitewash those articles through deletion of properly sourced content they don't like. I also barely stuck my toe in the cannabis articles and quickly discovered a poisonous atmosphere and have done very little there, even though I could contribute. Why do we warn and block people for 3rr and other relatively minor issues and skirmishes, but never do anything about personal attacks? The worst areas are RfCs and ArbCom proceedings, where the vilest personal attacks are allowed every day, and nothing is done. "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" are also considered a personal attack. They are violations of the WP:NPA policy. Why should that policy be broken with impunity? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BullRangifer. A big part of the problem is when the NPA gets intertwined with content disputes, and of course another part is that there is only partial community consensus on civility. What happens is those violating NPA claim that those objecting are just trying to get the upper hand in the content dispute, and that the supposed personal attack was just a good faith attempt to call out COI violations. The Monsanto dispute to which I referred did indeed wind up at ANI, and zilch came of it, other than a wall-o-text. (In hindsight, I blame myself for that, a little bit, because I mistakenly decided to keep replying to everything that was said. I'd like to believe that it was an uncharacteristic mistake on my part, because most of the time, I'm pretty good (I think) at not taking content disputes personally, so when I avoid a topic, it's usually because I don't have time, not because I'm squeamish about facing down POV pushers.) Anyway, that's my venting, and I thank MastCell for hosting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Bias

OK, I understand that you don't see yourself as particularly biased against TM, but since the wikipedia pages about other forms of meditation don't seem to make mention of any caveats made by reviewers about the quality of meditation research in general, while editors bring it up over and over again on the TM research page (which has been folded into a tiny section that doesn't even mention all the different avenues of research that are being investigated), surely you can see how I might get the impression that TM is being singled out?

I'd like to ask you a question about research design? What would need to be done to make a TM study better in your opinion? The best designed study on meditation that I am aware of was conducted by a team of researchers who were actually advocates of several different practices. They attempted to ensure that all meditation teachers were as professional looking/sounding as the TM teachers, with well-memorized, professional presentations made while wearing business attire, using professionally done materials that presented slick charts that made reference to real research on the kind of meditation practice they were teaching. Subjects were randomly assigned, given the lecture by the meditation teacher, and then given a questionnaire to see if there were differences in expectation between groups (there were not). Data collection was done blind by graduate students from Harvard University and researchers were also blind to group participation: Transcendental meditation, mindfulness, and longevity: an experimental study with the elderly. If future TM studies were done along these lines, but on a larger scale, would this make the results more acceptable to you?

You should be aware that I have been in touch with all the major players in the TM organization pitching the concept that teh David Lynch Foundation should make it known that they are willing to instruct subjects in studies on other meditation practices TM so that such studies can become official head-to-head studies of TM vs <whatever>. The TM hierarchy seems at least somewhat receptive towards doing such a thing, but I'm not convinced that researchers into other practices will be. Do you think that such studies should be done?

By the way, this study was done by researchers who don't practice any form of meditation, as far as I know, Reduced functional connectivity between cortical sources in !ve meditation traditions detected with lagged coherence using EEG tomography, but TM researchers have convinced the original authors to conduct a followup that examines long-term TM practitioners specifically. If the TMers are shown to be different in some significant way from the practitioners of the other practices, how should such a pair of studies be reported, and what wikipedia page should it be reported in?Sparaig2 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Sparaig2 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I originally put this in the middle of your talk page instead of at the end, which is why there's a double signature as I just cut and paste to move it. Sparaig2 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. Please understand that I have no experience in research on meditation, so the answers I'm providing are based on my limited personal viewpoint and are not those of an expert in the relevant field. It's useful to look at the 2007 AHRQ review and the 2014 AHRQ-funded systematic review for ideas on how clinical trials of meditation could be better designed. The 2007 AHRQ review found that even the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of meditation were methodologically suspect, because of poor reporting of aspects like allocation concealment, patient attrition, etc. Likewise, the 2014 systematic review identified four main sources of bias in the mediation literature: lack of blinding in outcome assessment, high attrition, lack of allocation concealment, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis. These are all basic aspects of clinical trial design and conduct, and should be amenable to improvement.

The selection of an appropriate active control group is also a key question, and a huge source of weakness in many of the RCTs. Clinical trials should always start with a specific clinical question, and the selection of an appropriate control group depends in large part on the question one is trying to answer. It is very easy to bias a randomized clinical trial—either inadvertently or intentionally—to yield a positive result by selecting a specific control group, something that drug companies figured out a long time ago. This is a very subtle form of bias and often very hard to identify.

I think it would be interesting to compare various forms of meditation (e.g. mindfulness vs. mantra, etc) to see whether they are essentially equivalent, or whether there is some specific component of the meditation process which is central to the potential health benefits. It seems a bit far-fetched that meditating for 20 minutes while repeating a mantra is biologically different from meditating without a mantra for 20 minutes, or that any biological differences between the two approaches would translate into a meaningful difference in clinical endpoints. But I guess it's not impossible.

It's important to note that a trial in which TM instructors teach other meditation techniques will be useless and uninterpretable. If the instructor believes deeply that TM is beneficial, and is skeptical that other approaches are as beneficial, then that bias will be communicated (consciously or unconsciously) to the experimental subjects, biasing the results. This phenomenon is called observer-expectancy bias, and it's the reason why double-blinding, of study staff as well as subjects, is essential. This unconscious bias can produce hugely invalid results, as in the famous case of a horse who could seemingly solve complex math problems (in fact, the horse simply became conditioned to respond to non-verbal clues being offered unconsciously by the experimenters). MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. On the last point, I can assure you that it would be anathema (literally) for an active TM teacher to ever teach or even practice (unless it is their culture's religious tradition) some other practice, so that point isn't going to arise.

Concerning various active control groups, the main choice in meditation studies has been "Progressive Muscle Relaxation" as that is known to have very little effect on people so it's a safe bet that your (the researchers') favorite meditation practice will look good in comparison. You may be surprised that there is some receptivity to my proposal that not only should TM researchers be making a good-faith attempt to enlist the participation of mindfulness researchers to perform head-to-head studies, but that there has also been some acceptance to including Benson's Relaxation Response in a study instead-of/in-addition-to, PMR, because TM researchers are firmly convinced that it is not working at all as intended, despite being originally designed by Herbert Benson to imitate the practice of TM. From the TM perspective, all "mantra based" meditation practices are NOT the same. By the way, this study, (pubmed citation) or **Download:** Reduction in Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in Congolese Refugees Practicing Transcendental Meditation (.doc file format), appears to be an attempt to address some of the criticisms you mention. The "active control group" issue isn't addressed, but given the circumstances of the study, the fact that they were able to conduct it at all was an achievement all its own. Hopefully new studies of this type will be better designedSparaig2 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on the 1RR rule on abortion-related articles. Appreciate it.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Kudos!

I kept wishing for a social-media-esque 'Like' button as I read through your user page. Thanks for sharing. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Much appreciated, and I'm glad you enjoyed it. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User making disparaging reference to sexual orientation, again

Hi MastCell - I don't know if you remember this thread, but it's one where Esoglou repeatedly made disparaging reference to my sexual orientation as a reason why my editing was not acceptable to him, and now he's just gone and done it again over at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Can this just be dealt with? Or do I have to go over to AN or ANI for it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest with you: I cannot believe that Esoglou is still permitted to edit in these topic areas, where he's repeatedly shown himself to be incapable of productive editing and interaction. But while I think his comments are too close to a line that he's crossed in the past, I think that any action I take based on them will be unlikely to stand. In any case, right now the article and talkpage seem to be devolving into edit-warring and argumentation between the two of you, and the most likely outcome of an AN/I thread is a lot of noisy idiocy from the usual noisy idiots and perhaps page protection or blocks for both of you. I think the best course of action is to try to get more eyes on the article, either at the relevant content noticeboards or through the relevant WikiProjects. To be clear, I don't think his commentary is acceptable. I guess I can assume that he's being clueless rather than malicious, although beyond a certain point cluelessness is just as harmful as malice. I've just gotten very realistic (or cynical) about what can be accomplished in the context of the current Wikipedia "community" when it comes to setting appropriate parameters for serious discussion. I'm sorry I can't be of more assistance in this instance. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully further input will help at this specific article, but do you have any suggestions in the long term? The user's been topic-banned from two different subjects and had a decent amount of support for a topic ban from a third, has harassed me on multiple occasions, (and that's why I don't share your faith that this is just cluelessness; if he's really remained clueless that long, there's still enough of a WP:COMPETENCE problem that he still should not be editing) and if the community won't stop him... ? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you put together a brief summary of this editor's history (links to topic bans, AN/I discussions, diffs to harassing comments, etc) - no more than just a paragraph or so, but with the relevant discussions and bans linked? I know it's busywork, but it might help in assessing how much of an issue there is, and in determining the best approach to deal with it. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you'd like more than this.

Topic ban from Eastern Orthodox Christianity imposed here. (I wasn't involved in this but I can try to dig up earlier material on it if it would help.)

First topic ban from abortion: evidence collected here, ban officially imposed here.

Second topic ban from abortion: imposed here. More topic area evidence is collected there, but what immediately precipitated the ban was this post of a sexual image to my talk page, posted after the discussion had begun and apparently intended to get me to back off. He still has this image at the top of his talk page with a reference to the incident.

Some (though not all) of his disruption in the topic area of homosexuality is collected here. I realized after the discussion began that a lot of his original research and misrepresentation of sources isn't obvious if you haven't actually read the sources, so I'd be happy to explain. This was one of the discussions where he attributed the edits he disagreed with to my sexual orientation [39][40][41], leading several users to support a topic ban, including ones who had not previously done so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

mdash police

I understand the purpose of the MOS for dashes in article space, but whats the point of doing it for something like workshop comments? Why bother? Is it something we should be doing in talk page comments etc? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it was just something that was bothering me. Uneven hyphenation is like nails on a chalkboard (or like an unmatched left parenthesis) to me. I probably shouldn't have bothered, but I guess I've been on Wikipedia too long. It's definitely not something anyone should worry about in their comments. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Hello, MastCell. What you might do to pretty quickly gain an accurate idea of who's behind the recent incivility at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism is to peruse its current Talk page from the section "Don't make stupid edits", created on January 18, to the present. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously think this doesn't violate your interaction ban? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Ros, but they won't even let us talk . . . the bastards!! Badmintonhist (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) incredibly foolish, assuming you have any desire to continue editing wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If there is an interaction ban, his or her comment is in violation of that, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Badmintonhist: This is a blatant violation of your interaction ban. If I'd seen it yesterday, when you posted it, I'd have blocked you. As it is, I can't quite bring myself to block you, since at this point it would probably be more punitive than preventative. But I'm not sure how to get through to you that your conduct is unacceptable. You need to stop following Roscelese around. There are 4 million pages here, and almost as many content discussions. Find ones that don't involve Roscelese. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Duck

Move Like This
by 28bytes

With thanks for cheers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What edit warring?

I made ONE revert, which isn't exactly risking 3RR, is it? As for the information I added being contentious, it isn't. Stan the mechanic does not have a medical qualification and he did claim to have found longitudinal results from a cross sectional study. I accept that (medical) Dr Siegel's blog isn't an RS and will look for a better source, but let's not pretend that Glantz's "research" is universally accepted.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and reported you to AN/I, as your nonsensical and abusive talkpage commentary violates WP:BLP on top of your violations in articlespace. The edit-warring is detailed there with diffs, so I'll refer you (and any interested readers) there for further discussion. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review opinion

Hi, I'm thinking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Robertson GQ interview controversy should be overturned to no consensus but would like your opinion and possible support, if you agree. I think this help answer some of the due weight issues at both the Phil Robertson BLP, and the Duck Dynasty article from where it was spun out. The admin has been unresponsive after initial dismissal of concerns. I'm concerned we are white-washing the notable impact of the events, and I think a stand alone would help address that. I've also asked DDG for their opinion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering you here. My personal view is that we have too many "controversy" articles devoted to these sorts of US-culture-war flare-ups. So my bias in these situations is always going to be to delete the standalone 'controversy' article and focus on comprehensive, concise coverage in the main parent article. I appreciate (and sympathize with) the difficulty you're having in dealing with some of the editors at the Phil Robertson article—trust me, I've been there—but I think that spinning off a "controversy" article invariably does more harm than good. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with persistent disruption by Petrarchan47

Hi MastCell. I know dealing with conduct issues isn't generally your bag but I'm hoping you can help me here, as you might be the only person Petrarchan will listen to (based on this thread and this follow-up comment). She has made lots of great contributions to Edward Snowden and The Day We Fight Back but she's become increasingly disruptive while exhibiting extreme and ongoing WP:OWN, WP:AGF, AND WP:NPA issues (among others). In a nutshell she seems to resist any efforts by other editors to tweak her work, and often resorts to tactics that I think are way out-of-bounds. In the past I've repeatedly tried discussing these issues with her directly to no avail. (And she told me not to post on her user talk anymore.) Rather than giving you the long story I'll simply point you to some of the worse recent talk page discussions and let you make your own assessment:

• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]

To be clear, I'm hoping you'll address the conduct problems rather than the content problems. I have no problem with the fact that she and I disagree some things; I would just like to be able resolve those disagreements in a civil and intellectually honest manner. If this is something you absolutely refuse to assist me with, I understand, but perhaps you can recommend some other avenue I might try. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Longtime talk page stalker here: DrFleischman, I should think you would be leery of the boomerang effect if people were to look into the matter and thus become aware of certain accusatory attacks you have made in the various interchanges with Petrarchan47. To me it looks like you are hounding and harassing her. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please quit it with the idle, unsubstantiated threats. Lay out all your evidence; I have nothing to fear. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

To me it looks like you are enabling her, Binksternet, by essentially telling her at every turn "yes, you are being picked on, and I, your avenger, will be sure to give your tormentors a black eye." No sooner does she announce that she divides Wikipedians into "those who edit because they love Wikipedia and the truth, and those who are here for other purposes" than she says it's "good to have support (so, thank you Bink, Gandy, Justa, et al) when one thinks they may be coming up against powerful forces, or those associated with them, and their related hostility." She's not going to revisit this notion of hers that she's being besieged by hostile and "powerful forces" and give other editors more space when you keep telling her that you have her back through all the trials and tribulations she imagines. We need to get everyone concerned here to look at the CONTENT and you could set the example here Binksternet by not egging her on when she sets out to battle the malevolent "force" of the day, like when she demanded that all employees of the US, UK, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand governments out themselves so that they can be scrutinized. I'd encourage you to read what MastCell said to her on December 2, where MastCell very politely tried to get her to back off from going after Doc as some sort of government agent. Maybe you could second MastCell's opinion there, or explain what's wrong with it if you disagree with it.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would really like this discussion to be about Petrarchan and me. Bink is constantly highjacking and distracting, and I don't want to fall into that trap again. I would appreciate it if we can focus on Petrarchan's conduct, not mine, and not Bink's. If anyone wants to discussion others' conduct then that's fine, just do it in a separate thread. If we stray too far then I'll ask MastCell to hat these sorts of side discussions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This user talk space is unavoidably public. Even if you undertook to examine Petra's behavior in an WP:RFCU, all related behavior would be seen a valid points of discussion—yours, mine, Brian's. If you wish to talk to MastCell in private, take it to email.

Petra has indicated to me that she feels hounded and harassed. I value her presence on Wikipedia, so I have determined to keep an eye out for such sparks, and damp them if I can. As well, I will resist any attempt by someone to single her out, to cut her away from those she sees as supporters. Wikipedia's atmosphere can be poisonous to those who do not have thick skin, especially women; my skin is quite thick which is why I think I can help her survive here. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Now if I could just find my own knight in shining armour to clear the way for me without ever second guessing whether I should be going in that direction. I'd finally be free to act with impunity! In her "quacks like a duck" piece she links to "How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)": "FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established. Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country." Do you have an opinion on whether Doc and I are COINTELPRO agents, Binksternet? If nothing good is going to come out of this line of inquiry, why don't you suggest she spend her time on something else? You're looking out for her best interests, right?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

With my thick skin, I'll be your knight in shining armor, Brian. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry MastCell, I hope we didn't scare you away! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Petra has indicated to me that she feels hounded and harassed." She seems to feel hounded and harassed in every topic area she edits in, even when it is a completely different sets of editors ... Second Quantization (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, new user. It seems you are insinuating that it's quite silly to think that any editor would get harassed here - no matter what subject matters they edit. Based on your few hours as an editor, I can't imagine why you thought to comment here, but indeed if there is a way to paint me as a bad guy, or discredit me as paranoid, it dilutes the message and quickly lets others off the hook, so I agree it was worth a try. petrarchan47tc 20:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Few hours? red page != new user. Formerly IRWolfie-, Second Quantization (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no wonder! No one dislikes me more than you ;) Welcome back. petrarchan47tc 05:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I had been meaning to respond to this thread. I have a lot of respect for both User:Petrarchan47 and for you, based on my interactions with both of you in various venues. I share Petrarchan's concerns about undisclosed COI editing, but at the same time I don't think anyone here is a covert FBI operative or anything. Edward Snowden (and the issues of government surveillance and oversight that he raised) is a controversial topic which brings out honest, strongly held differences of opinion, and I think that's what's going on here. That said, I don't have the energy (or, at this point, the tools) to mediate a dispute between two solid, good-faith editors whom I respect. I'm really flattered that you (collectively, in this thread) view me as someone whose help is worth seeking, but I just don't have it in me to take this on right now. I'm sorry - I know that's not very helpful, but I hope you and Petrarchan can find some sort of common ground, at least enough to disagree civilly on this contentious topic. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

reasonable weight without asserting criminality sans charges

Would you find the single sentence I give on the talk page as conveying the gist og the NSA actions without giving it undue weight and detail? Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Important progress

I have finally created Wikipedia:Irregular verbs on Wikipedia.

Floquenbeam, I quoted one of yours out of the archives of MastCell's talk page.

(I'd be happy to have the page expanded and reorganized by anyone who is amused by it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Good start. It could use a bit about seeing good intentions in others – WP:AGF. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet,

I'm not quite sure where to go with that one. I assume good faith; she sees the world with rose-tinted glasses? Or did you mean the other way around: I assume good faith; you are cynical; he assumes bad faith? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The former: We all assume good faith. The verb to assume good faith needs a bit of explanation. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I've ran across you on multiple occasions and every time you are improving an article substantially. Keep up the great work! Meatsgains (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it's much appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk:204.101.237.139. You blocked it as an open proxy, but I can find no evidence at all that it is an open proxy. Can you let me know what evidence you had? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I believe it was based on this page, where the IP is listed as a "confirmed proxy server". That said, I can't say I feel particularly strongly about the matter (or anything else on this website) at this point. If you think I'm incorrect about this IP being an open proxy, feel free to unblock it. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the answer. For future reference, though, all that whatismyipaddress.com says is that it's confirmed as a proxy server, not as an open proxy server, and blocking purely on the basis of that is never safe. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comment in the Gun control case

Hello. I think you did a small mistake and placed it in the wrong section. As I understand you are not a party to the case so it should be placed in the "Comment by others" section. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, OK. I'm not sure which comment you mean, but I'm fine with it being moved wherever it's supposed to go. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. It was this edit in the advocacy section, I was referring too. On second thought, I would probably been allowed to simply move it myself; I thought I wasn't, but I was mixing it up with the ban against editing the Proposed Decision page. Iselilja (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't keep up with the ever-expanding ruleset here, but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to move it if you feel strongly. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to check with one of the case clerks: Penwhale (Talk) or Bbb23 (Talk). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I could move it, but I'd have to add in additional reply marks (since AYW replied to MastCell). I don't think it's as of utter importance personally to move it at this point. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on anthropology

(This one) made me smile as I realized there was an ambiguity regarding whether it was the curiosity that approximated the curiosity of anthropologists or the subject matter of interest that approximated the subject matter of interest to anthropologists. Any way, Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto and etc. etc. Keep up the good work!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad someone finally appreciates the Nabokovian layers of meaning invested in my projectspace posts. :P I used to agree that nothing human could be strange to me, but that was before I started participating here. Most of the time, I can't even reconstruct the basic thought processes that underlie the expressed views of the "community" these days. (Or maybe I've given up trying). The more apt line from Terence with regard to Wikipedians is probably Aliis si licet tibi non licet, in that people continually excuse in themselves the behaviors they condemn in others. Anyhow, thanks again for the kind note, and please keep up the good work as well. MastCell ^Talk 15:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Freud would call it Reaction Formation. Aesop would have quipped about a couple of thieves...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/29/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Unless it says something along the lines of "I survived 8 years of editing and adminning and all I got was this stupid T-shirt". :) MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Keating

Kindly note that Wasted Time R is in the exact same position as I on that article, and so I left him the warning that you did not give. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly; you violated 3RR (by reverting 4 times) while he's only reverted 3 times. I left you a note specifically to give you the opportunity to self-revert—it wouldn't make sense to do so for Wasted Time R, since you already reverted him and he's not in a position to self-revert. That said, both his and your behaviors could correctly be characterized as edit-warring, so I think it's reasonable to leave him a note. I've pinged him here as well. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And my count has him at 4 -- seems that I should be able to count that high with a minor in Applied Math ... Collect (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What!?!? A minor in math?? Why didn't you say so sooner? I'm just a poor innumerate humanities major, so I would never have presumed to count reverts if I knew I was dealing with someone so impressively credentialed. MastCell ^Talk 01:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

MastCell, my apologies for this situation. I did not think either of us was edit-warring, but rather that we had fallen into a series of BRD actions over different pieces of text, albeit in the same section of the article. But I can easily see how it looks like edit-warring from the outside. In retrospect, after the first revert I should have posted each proposed addition to the Talk page first, but I didn't think my changes were very bold, I thought each next change had taken into account Collect's objections, and I was honestly taken by surprise by each revert.

So go ahead and per Collect's request, revert my last edit, so as to return the text to the status quo ante - I obviously can't do that myself. I am withdrawing from any further editing on the article, so you won't have any more trouble on this. I'll make a couple of posts on the Talk page there about open issues and that'll be it.

I do want to take this chance to say that I am proud of the research and writing work I did to create a completely revised and greatly expanded article back in 2008-09 and get it to GA. I believe it is a good article, figuratively as well as literally, that fairly treats a complex and controversial subject. And I think Wikipedia was well-served by having it available when Keating died the other day and there was a readership spike. In particular, I think our article did a much better job at capturing all the different aspects of his life than did any of the newspaper obits I saw.

But again, apologies. I try my best to avoid drama but failed in this case. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: I don't think you should leave the article. (I don't think Collect should either). You've done an excellent job on it. I'm confident you'll work through whatever issues have come up. (After all, if you could deal with Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant, you can deal with anybody). I hope you continue to work on the article. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I generally get along with competent, unbiased, and well-intentioned editors, like WTR.[46]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

MastCell,

I can't imagine you would have any more energy to read this than I have to write it, but hopefully it doesn't take too much of your time. The BP oil spill articles (BP, BP oil spill, and Corexit) began having lots of activity recently, and it's hard not to note that also recently the date for BP's last phase of their trial was announced - the Clean Water Act trial, worth multi-billion$ as you may imagine. Suddenly edits to these very issues - right to the heart of them - came along with some intensity. The attitude behind the editing is not dissimilar to our old friend, R11, though that's likely a coincidence.

Corexit was used during the spill to break up (or hide) the oil. Not much science was done prior to the spill, but one very damning study done since that was well-covered found that the dispersant created a mixture that was up to 54 times more toxic than the oil alone. I knew that if one was to try and do some pre-trial whitewashing, this study would be attacked first. So it wasn't difficult to take note of some activity that was *interesting*, however I don't have the energy these days to fight this stuff. I do still like editing here, though, and think I need to get this person off my back at the very least. What type of action would one take, or is this just considered par for the course?

• "Step away from your activism long enough to understanding what is being said"

• following me to a completely unrelated article

• bitchy comments on my talk page due to misunderstanding context

Maybe you have an idea of someone else I should ask, I really don't want to bother you (or anyone) with this crud, but I also don't want to be called names whilst doing my editing here, so something needs to happen. Thanks again, petrarchan47tc 00:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello MastCell. We have not crossed paths before but I am the "shill" that User:Petrarchan47 is talking about. After tolerating her COI accusations for weeks now, I really must insist that they stop. This is not the first time she has done this behavior, it has been brought up at ANI at least twice now. I do not understand why it has been allowed to continue. The irony of her COI accusation is that nearly all of her edits are POV-pushing of some form or another, usually environmentally aligned such as anti-Corexit, anti-Monsanto, anti-GMO, anti-nuclear, etc. I believe that she is here to "right great wrongs". Any editor that does not agree her she calls a shill. She does not go to COIN, rather she carries out repeated personal attacks. She actually suggested that every one of my edits should be rolled back. This should not be tolerated further. I, too, am interested in your advice. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are some examples of her bad behavior and COI accusations: [47],

[48], [49].

She also simply does not seem to understand much of the content I want to discuss. She gets papers confused, doesn't seem to understand basic science, doesn't make an effort to. You may find an example of that on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard under Deepwater Horizon. I am sorry to drop this on you having not interacted with you before, however I see that I am being talked about. Geogene (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I just found this bit at the Corexit talk page, it was apparently removed then replaced at the insistence of Gandydancer: Geogene: "The copyvio here is less obvious than some of what you see elsewhere on WP, but I anticipate requesting a CCI on someone in the near future, since this has clearly been a long term problem that is manifest in several different articles." So, the story is that Geogene doesn't like being confronted on their tendentious edits at the oil spill articles. They have gone after anyone who confronts them, and have essentially been trolling me. Figureof9 points it out here. Now it appears their teaming up with Dr Fleischman continues, unless this "CCI" is being done by Geogene alone. Geogene is an editor with 3 months under their belt, and 1.5 dealing with me at the oil spill articles. Given this short history, these reactions to being confronted for not using sources properly do not make sense. petrarchan47tc 05:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here is what they are calling "anti-nuclear". Apparently if updates are negative I am an "activist" rather than a good Wikipedian. The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station flooded a few years back, and the article hadn't been updated with results from the town hall meetings and inspections. The results weren't good, but that shouldn't be a reflection on me. The anti-Monsanto accusation comes from a three-month period trying to work on the March Against Monsanto article, where I earned long-term enemies like Second Quanitization (IRWolfie). Others have noted that if they try to add anything to a Wikipedia article that doesn't compliment Monsanto, they are met by a tight group of editors and are in for a tough fight that they will loose. As for "getting papers confused" - that was one incident and I caught my own mistake in minutes. The incident at the RS noticeboard was due to my spellcheck changing a word. This reply above is a little over the top, and a pretty desperate attempt to discredit me. petrarchan47tc 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, MastCell - I see this was your response a month ago: "I don't have the energy (or, at this point, the tools) to mediate a dispute...I just don't have it in me to take this on right now." I do apologize for bringing you yet another hairy mess when you've already stated that you've had enough of this stuff. FWIW, things calmed down tremendously after simply voicing my concerns here, so thank you for that! Best, petrarchan47tc 04:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this is not "solved" and I'm still hoping for a response. Geogene (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it to ANI. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't done any background work looking into the dispute, so I'm not in any position to comment on who's "right" and who's "wrong". I have been appalled by the role that we've allowed BP's public-relations department to play in writing our coverage of the Deepwater Horizon spill, and at the incredible combination of ignorance and hubris which define our community's approach to handling conflicts of interest. But I think the disputes in this topic area have progressed well beyond that to a stage where established editors are entrenched and this will end up before ArbCom in the next 6-9 months. I'm just not in a position to commit to the level of diligence that would be required to mediate this dispute right now. I hope you're able to resolve this dispute, and I'd like to be helpful but I don't think I can provide the level of assistance that's being requested here. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I hope you're wrong about it going to ArbCom, but I don't blame you at all--way too much history. Geogene (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, could you please take a moment to explain what you mean by saying that the DWH spill articles established editors are "entrenched" and why you think the issue will go to ArbCom? Gandydancer (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested in that as well. What I know from my standpoint is that right now the Corexit article is being attacked by two SPAs who are being treated like dinner party guests, while one of them takes me to an ANI after only a few weeks of experience here. The other thing I know is that there exists no language to address this. There are stricter rules against pointing out obvious malfeasance than there are against it. We are bending over backwards here to accommodate SPAs and their daily list of grievances at the dispersant articles, whilst I have had my wrists slapped for even bringing up the timing of this sudden interest in prettying up Corexit with regard to the announcement of the Clean Water Act trial. A commentary criticizing a damning study done on Corexit was used by one of the SPAs to delete the study from the oil dispersant article. Little did we know this commentary was funded by BP. Wikipedia expects, as the rules are currently written, for independent editors to be able to adequately fight type of activity. I think we are woefully inept as the guidelines actually work against us. petrarchan47tc 22:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what "entrenched" means in this context - it looks to be derogatory. I would love to untrench myself, and am wondering if anyone would step in, or if we would just throw these articles to any SPA with an agenda? The latter looks to be case, which can't be preferable for an encyclopedia. Is there a noticeboard where one can ask for willing editors to step in, research and take over? petrarchan47tc 22:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not meant to be derogatory at all. I mean that this dispute has festered long enough that no admin is likely to feel comfortable mediating it, which makes it more likely that it will eventually go to ArbCom. To answer your question, no one is going to step in. Back in the day, I used to feel like there was a core of clueful editors who would support each other in these kinds of situations, but most of that core has been run off the site or decided they have better things to do than argue interminably with cranks and agenda accounts. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well that reiterates why I've been feeling like running off. I also remember that core. From what I am observing, at this point the only response that makes sense is to just walk away. petrarchan47tc 07:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

MastCell, what longstanding dispute (not this recent Corexit dispute) are you referring to? I know that editors come by all the time and complain that the BP and the spill articles are biased against BP, but they just complain and then leave rather than helping with the articles. I have been raked over the coals and shamed by ArbCom once, and I will quit editing any BP article before I let that happen again.Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that editors come by all the time and complain that the BP and the spill articles are biased against BP, but they just complain and then leave rather than helping with the articles.

That is true and one could ask what is the reason behind of this. I do not believe that all these editors are SPAs editing on behalf of BP. And I do not believe that most of them are not interested to help to improve these articles. I think that reasons why they leave "include both the desire to avoid being involved in edit wars, and the incivility common by some of the participants in edit wars." The aggressive attitude by a group of editors, including making allegations or even accusations that editors who do not support their POV are SPAs, and enormous waste of time to get actually some improvement based on editing guidelines done without being reverted, are by my understanding the main reason why they have stepped aside. Notwithstanding of the results of RfCs, no results is implemnted if opposed by certain group of editors. I am not going to name all editors who have been active in BP and DWH related articles and leave, but will give just some examples. One could decided if "they just complain and then leave rather than helping" or serious editors who hhave contributed into improvement of these articles. User:William M. Connolley, invited to the BP article by you. I don't know why he stopped editing that article, but before that certain editors did not liked that he raise issues of reliability of sources and soapboxing. User talk:SlimVirgin, came to the BP article in believe that the article is corrupt due to drafts by the BP representative. That was warmly welcomed by that group of editors who that time filled her talk page with discussions of conspiracy theories and making harsh accusations about editors not sharing their point of view. SlimVirgin tried to mediate a compromise between editors with different views and proposed some compromise text based on the results of RfCs. These compromise proposals were rejected by the above-mentioned group of editors who made clear that they will accept nothing else than their own version. User:Jytdog came the BP page with a view that it needs protection from COI editors. However, his editing was complained not by these so-called "COI editors" but again, by the above-mentioned group of editors. The certain editor from the BP page accused him being COI editor in the dispute concerning concerning Monsanto. User:Iselilja made only two edits and although her edits were improvement to follow the guidelines, her edits were reverted rapidly. I do not call also User:Martin Hogbin or User:BozMo editors who "just complain and then leave rather than helping". My own wikibreak last year was not caused by anything what happened in Wikipedia but I hesitate a long time before returning due to very negative experience on interacting with some members of that group of editors. At last I decided to return but not edit BP and DWH articles. And not vecause these articles do not need improvement but just to save myself from personal attacks and accusations. This is definitely not how the Wikipedia should work. I think that the crucial moment was one year ago when instead of blocking all edit warriors that time, based on WP:WAR, only User:Rangoon11 was blocked, based on WP:3RR. That encourage some editors not to find compromises but rather by teaming. Therefore I believe that this Pandora box should be opened and the only suitable venue left is ArbCom. RfCs have not worked nor DR or informal mediation. Preparations for a formal mediations had been started and dropped as it was clear that not all parties are not ready to accept mediation results. So, ArbCom seems to be the last resort here. Beagel (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with ArbCom is that do not settle content disputes, only user behaviour. They might make an exception if it is a matter of general principle such as excessive anti-business, anti-oil propaganda. WP is intended to be an encyclopedia yet some articles look nothing like that which you would find in a quality written encyclopedia.

No one seems to care that the BP article contains (or did contain, I have not been there recently) a greater proportion of negative content about the subject than any other WP article, including Pol Pot and Hitler. If Arbcom do take the case on I would be happy to contribute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that there is only one long-time editor at the DWH cluster that sees me as the enemy. She will fight any effort to improve the articles tooth and nail. My attempt to raise the issue of her serial COI accusations +/- POV pushing at ANI appears to have failed. That means that a submission to ArbCom is probably inevitable. There are some content/POV problems in those articles, mostly the overuse of advocacy groups as sources. But the problem is ultimately a behavioral one. Geogene (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's my sense that the Deepwater Horizon/BP articles are a long-standing nexus of conflict, with some spillover into articles like Corexit. But I'll be the first to admit that my view is based on a superficial impression, and that I haven't done any serious or recent reading of the pages in question. If my superficial impression is wrong - which it sounds like it may be - then I genuinely apologize. Look, I have respect for both of you, and the comment about "entrenched" editors was not meant to be a backhanded criticism of you guys at all. I'm sorry it came across that way. If I had a problem with something that either of you was doing, I'd just tell you directly.

I understand your frustration - really, I've been there. I know it feels like a no-win situation where you can either stay and fight a losing battle under conditions that are slanted against you, or leave and abandon the page to people you feel will wreck it. I don't have a good answer for that. Actually, I do, but it's easier said than done. One of the reasons I put this together was to remind myself of the value of detachment. There are lots of ways to make a difference in the world and make it a better place. Editing Wikipedia is perhaps one of those - I certainly thought it was when I started editing here - but it's not the only one, and I try to remember that. If I abandon a conflict on Wikipedia to save my sanity, I try to take some of the time I would have spent arguing with cranks and idiots here and instead spend it doing something I think will concretely benefit others.

It's been a huge disappointment to me to watch the culture and community here self-destruct, and to watch most of the people who made this place fun burn out or be chased off. But the biggest challenge here is avoiding the tunnel vision that afflicts most Wikipedians. I can't tell you what to do, or whether this particular situation is worth investing with more time and angst, but in the end (as Candide came to realize) all you can do is cultivate your garden, and light your corner as best you can. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your viewpoint--I was starting to wonder if you knew something that I didn't. As for frustration/no win situation, etc., I don't feel that way at all. It certainly was frustrating when Rangoon was ruling the roost but after the Violet Blue explosion the playing field seemed to level out, and considering how complicated the article is, and that there is ongoing litigation, I think it is going along OK. Arturo is a good company rep and I think we are lucky to have him as long as editors remember that he is not unbiased. Gandydancer (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you're not mistaken. Articles related to BP have committed editors who have shown no sign of favouring NPOV. Our last RfC at BP overwhelmingly found that the article is still slanted heavily in favor of BP, and most thought the article was in poor shape. No one is wiling to work on it, though, because of the ramifications. I'm sure BP likes it that way, if I may be so bold. IMO, it does need to go ArbCom. I'm glad to hear this is a plan. But the real reason I'm replying here is to tell you that your "Wikipedia for cynics" is a masterpiece, and a balm for my soul. It's just delightful to know that someone is paying attention. Thank you also for your comments above, MastCell. You speak to the human inside the Wikipedian, which is unbelievably rare around here. Danke. petrarchan47tc 18:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, as one of "the SPAs" who is being "treated like a dinner guest" (I hope there's no Homeric allusion in that) I feel like I've been bullied for having a different POV and trying to make a better article. I've been outnumbered nearly the entire time. I'm exhausted having to take things to noticeboards to get things done, because that's the only place I feel like I can get a fair hearing--that's what she means by me "being treated like a dinner guest"--the fact that people there hear me out. I'm exhausted to see the guilty party whine and pretend to be the victim. I'm especially tired of people telling me that I'm a liar, here to manipulate naive editors into believing my bullshit. But the way I see it, a bad article is not my problem. It's Wikipedia's problem, and Wikipedia deserves to lose credibility if it allows these things to continue like they are. I will do what I can, but there's no more point in it. It does surprise me that an editor can flaunt WP:CONSPIRACY on an admin's board in a clear attempt to WP:CANVASS group opposition against my edits (mob rule, anyone?) and then imply that they know that what they are doing is against the rules but they just don't care. This is sad. Geogene (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, here is the most recent RfC at the BP page. I highly advise reading this. They gave up on RfC's after this, but soon after, we met the very energetic Geogene.

On 21 March the start date was announced for the third and final phase of the civil trial against BP (January 20, 2015) to determine the amount of fines BP will pay in Clean Water Act fines. We have seen a lot of activity in articles related to this Oil dispersant and Corexit, though the articles have been very quiet until now. After fewer than 2 weeks, I had "Geogene" talking about me in ways I have never been talked about before on WP, and taking me to my first ANI. We have 2 SPAs talking about rewriting the Corexit article, and the oil dispersant article has already been redone, but no one speaks up and says, "Hey, this isn't normal editing behaviour. You seem to have an agenda." Instead, the one who does is seen as a problem. Just wanted to point this out. petrarchan47tc 04:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the RfC was indeed a disaster for encyclopedic style and content, which is why I gave up in disgust. I still hope though that sanity will prevail and that the article can, one day, be made to resemble something that might be found in a quality written encyclopedia.

Let me stress again that I am neither for or against BP but for WP being an encyclopedia, not a medium for investigative journalism, righting great wrongs, or attacking perceived bad people or organisations. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, P, but I resumed editing DWH-related articles in February. And anyway, if the civil trial begins more than a year from now, why would I (here assuming as you do that I'm a shill, and also that I think I can somehow influence a Federal trial through Wikipedia) begin trying to edit these WP articles 13 months before the trial begins, just because the start date had been announced? I'm afraid that just doesn't make sense, at any level. I also don't think I'm going to change my editing habits until this litigation process is over with just to help alleviate your fears that I'm here to manipulate that courts through WP (is that very likely in itself?). That just doesn't make sense either. Have you thought about taking this to the COI Noticeboard? Maybe they'll agree with you. That's where this sort of thing should go anyway. There's also a NB to report suspected sock-puppetry. Sounds like you should go there too. But repeating this on Talk pages, in addition to being against the rules, doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Link corrected

The correct link for the 12:43 edit on Keating is now in place on my user talk page - I hate Windows 8. Lurkers who make comments about my maths skills can rewrite their snark. Collect (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What can one do with editors who may be unstable or just full of themselves?

Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRoNGRoN&oldid=604520139 It basically says it all. The editor IronGron became very upset when I edited an article on the A-12. I tried to correct a ambiguous sentence and was mislead by what it stated due to the ambiguity. My edit was incorrect but the original sentence was unsourced and I used my 25 years of experience as an aircraft maintainer to try to sort out what the confusing sentence was trying to state. The editors response was well under the bar of civil discourse. I have tried to address that with the editor and it appears that the editor may be sufferring from a mental disorder based on their comments. Possibly schezophrenia but it may just be someone who is intentionally deceptive to win an argument. So my question is how does one go about address editors who curse and are extremely uncivil? Somewhat new but I understand there is a warning process but unsure of the protocol.

Copy of history page related to original negative tone comments below.

(cur | prev) 06:10, 15 April 2014‎ IRoNGRoN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (53,763 bytes) (+69)‎ . . (→ New Materials and production techniques - modified a sentence to prevent readers misinterpreting "operation at below 40C" to mean "minus 40C" - the oil was almost solid at room temp, so it had the diluent to be able to operate under 40C temps!!!) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:39, 15 April 2014‎ IRoNGRoN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (53,694 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (Undid revision 604258109 by 172.56.10.223 (talk) - the oils was nearly solid at room temperature, i.e 20C or so - it's well documented, that anonymous edit was absurd) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:32, 15 April 2014‎ 172.56.10.223 (talk)‎ . . (53,679 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (→‎New materials and production techniques: Fixed a conversion from celsius to fahrenheit that the editor forgot they needed to apply negative to the equation and not state below outside of the equation.) (undo)

Thanks. I have decided to repost this to Milborneone. I just found out that he is an aviation related admin and would be more familar with Irongron. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that...

...you've noticed that too. Very concisely and nicely put. Oh, and absolutely true. Antandrus (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The challenge was resisting the urge to name the law after some of the editors dedicated to illustrating it. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

But how would you choose your "some" from amongst the teeming multitudes?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Maybe I'd start with the ones who already have a habit of naming "laws" after themselves"? :P MastCell ^Talk 05:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[50].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That's good enough to plagiarize! :) MastCell ^Talk 06:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's all yours, after all, I stole it from some Epimenides via Kurt Godel...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Controversial"?

Since I'm not supposed to begin editing any article that I haven't edited before, if a certain editor is already editing it, I'll ask this question on your Talk page. At what point in the 60 Minutes clip on Becky Bell that we are using as our source, did it describe John C. Willke as a "controversial physician"? Badmintonhist (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC) PS: Also, at what point in the actual video presentation (as opposed to the blurb describing it which may have been dashed out a couple of decades later) does 60 Minutes state as an "undebated fact" that Becky died after an illegal abortion? If you listen to it carefully you will instead hear very hedged language : the Bells say . . . ; the coroner says . . . Badmintonhist (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I truly don't understand your obsession with following User:Roscelese around. Your inability to stop hounding her, despite numerous warnings and blocks, is frankly pretty creepy in my view. You need to stop tracking her contributions. I don't know what possesses you to keep following her around, but I'm certainly not going to enable you. MastCell ^Talk 04:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Then enable yourself to change YOUR errors. Those are the ones to which I was referring. You, not someone else, incorrectly said that the 60 Minutes segment stated as "undebated fact" that Becky Bell had died from an illegal abortion. You, and not someone else, first made the edit calling Dr. Willke "controversial" when it was not in the source that you were using. I follow any article on abortion that catches my eye, and a lot of them do because they tend to be fraught with bias. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

60 Minutes says that Bell "sought out a back-alley abortion instead—and died from complications." So call me crazy, but it sounds like they're saying pretty clearly that she died of complications of an illegal abortion. If you're going to pretend otherwise—or if you're going to pretend that you didn't follow Roscelese to the article—then you can save your breath. MastCell ^Talk 06:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The current WEBSITE BLURB says that Becky "sought out a back-alley abortion instead . . . " The actual 60 Minutes presentation which first aired over twenty years ago does not. Did you listen to it or are you shooting from the hip? As I said before, in the actual program segment, Morley Safer (living up to his last name?) uses very carefully hedged language . . . "Becky's parents believe . . . The coroner's report says . . . anti-abortion activists say . . . "

Now, as to your apparent practice of WP:SYNTH on Dr. Willke you say what? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

When the forensic pathologist that actually performed the autopsy says "Becky Bell died as result of a septic abortion with pneumonia" (@~10:50) then there is nothing to debate. Dr. Willke is free to make stuff up, but that doesn't change the facts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Forensic evidence is debated (sometimes by experts in the field) all the time. Why there would be huge gaps in many of TV's "true crime" programs if autopsy reports weren't debated. However, that isn't the point of my earlier comments. MastCell claimed that the 60 Minutes program conclusively said that Becky Bell died as the result of a "back alley" abortion. It did not. No doubt that it was trying to lead its viewers that way, but it carefully hedged its language so that it did not conclusively say this. MastCell used the blurb introducing the 60 Minutes clip as the basis for her statement. That's rather like using a book jacket blurb as a reliable source for the content of a book. More significantly, MastCell apparently used the 60 Minutes source (none other was given) as the basis for describing Dr. Willke as "controversial" when it did no such thing. That's pretty blatant synthesis, especially for an administrator.

This isn't the first time that I have been troubled by MastCell's approach to abortion related articles. Not long ago she dismissed a poll on attitudes toward abortion because it was supposedly conducted by the Knights of Columbus. She either didn't bother to see, or else didn't bother to mention, that the poll was only sponsored by the Knights and was actually conducted by the highly respected Marist Institute of Public Opinion. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"This is a traumatic thing — she's, shall we say, she's uptight," Dr. Willke said of a woman being raped, adding, "She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic."

Leading experts on reproductive health, however, dismissed this logic.

"There are no words for this — it is just nuts," said Dr. Michael Greene, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School.

—Belluck, P. (20 AUG 2012). "Health Experts Dismiss Assertions on Rape". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

No, I'm not kidding. Willke does not base his argument on any evidence and Morley Safer calls him on it. The 60 minutes program does conclusively support the fact that Bell "died as result of a septic abortion with pneumonia." I.e., An illegal "back alley" abortion.

The idea that Willke is controversial, as in known for just making shit up, borders on being a case of WP:BLUESKY. If you didn't think the source used was appropriate then you should have replaced with one more to your liking.

None of these facts are in doubt. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It really is hard to see what the issue is. There are hundreds of news stories about this case from both before and after the 60 minutes story. It's not like the whole thing lives or dies on the basis of what Morley Safer says. That seems like a red herring. If Badmintonhist doubts the statements, the appropriate thing to do is look for other sources. I did this, and found bunches very quickly. As ArtifexMayhem there are multiple sources attesting to the fact that Willke is "controversial." And also, if Safer didn't say it, then adding it to the sentence cited to the source wouldn't be synthesis anyway, as multiple sources are needed for that. Finally, I don't know the details of the KoC thing, but funding bias is a real thing, so it's absolutely not irrelevant that such a study was funded by the KoC no matter who carried out the work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alf etc. Adding the adjective "controversial" to it is form of WP:OR, but we commonly call it synthesis when an editor takes a description that he/she may have seen in another context and adds it to information based on a source that doesn't have that information. For instance (speaking of folks who make stuff up), if I say in an Wikipedia article that "the controversial Al Sharpton criticized Speaker Boehner for . . . " and my cited sources don't describe Sharpton as controversial (in which case I should attribute that description to the sources in text, anyway) then I have "committed" what folks around here commonly call synthesis. On the polling matter, who, except for "interested parties" fund polls on abortion? We use the Guttmacher Institute all over the place for information. It was originally, of course, part of Planned Parenthood and has received millions of bucks from them over the years.

@Mayhem. One really can't have any idea of whether or not Willke based his argument on any evidence except that he contends that he did. Safer did not "call him" on lack of evidence. He "called him" on using other pro-life physicians, or at least one of them -- Bernard Nathanson, for calling the autopsy report into question. Willke may have gone into great detail with Safer about the report and what he and others saw as its flaws. We don't know because we only get a minute or two of carefully edited glimpses of the interview. -- Badmintonhist (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall the details of the Knights of Columbus thing—God forbid you actually provide a diff to substantiate your accusations—but if you're "troubled" by my editing then surely you're familiar with the proper venues to address your concerns. You've created a nice Catch-22: if I respond to your posts, then I'm enabling your continued hounding of Roscelese. If I don't respond, then your dubious assertions go unchallenged. I think I'll take door #2 myself, although Artifex and alf are welcome to continue the dialogue with you. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe these will refresh your memory. Such a long time ago. [51]; [52]; [53]. I hope our mutual friend isn't overly traumatized by this. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The poll is not from a peer-reviewed journal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That contribution and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee (though not at Starbucks) but I agree with you on durian. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm still sad that I can't say "it's your nickel" any more without getting nothing but blank stares...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so that's how you make the type face smaller! Yeah, I remember when a nickel could buy me a fairly decent sized mug of A&W rootbeer. Maybe you should try "It's your dime." Badmintonhist (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that people don't even remember payphones, let alone the fact that the price of a phone call used to be something one had to take into account while talking...for a while I tried "it's your calling card," but to no avail...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock User:Useitorloseit with sanctions?

I see you've blocked Useitorloseit (talk · contribs) for one week for edit warring. He's asking to be unblocked to participate in the discussion at the article's talk page.

I'm thinking of offering an unblock with the following conditions:

1. He's subject to 1RR on Ta-Nehisi Coates and related articles for one month.
2. He needs to leave a message about the sanction on his talk page for the month.
3. Violation of 1RR may result in him being reblocked without further warning.

What's your take? Is 1RR sufficient, or should we go all the way to 0RR? —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I think those conditions are reasonable. I'd just go with 1RR. I wouldn't bother with 0RR; I've found it's clunky to implement and, really, if someone can't manage to adhere to 1RR then there's really no point in prolonging things. Please feel free to unblock him, and thanks for stopping by to touch base first. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dominic Barton

Hi MastCell. I have a conflict of interest. I've put together a proposed draft at User:CorporateM/Barton that I think should be a large improvement and ready for a GAN. If I was submitting it to AfC, it would be easy, but since the current article is well-developed, it would be very difficult for a disinterested editor to compare the two versions and review the sources. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the best process for me to suggest improvements.

I find that in most cases editors say it is easier in small chunks, but I don't find that to be the case. Inevitably editors end up disagreeing on petty items and the process breaks down without bold editing. Also, it can take 2-3 weeks to get each chunk considered, which would place the timeline on making a page GAN-ready into almost a year. So I am trying to find the best way to improve articles where (a) I have a COI and would like to follow best practices (b) the current article is well-developed making it difficult to compare the two versions and (c) a large number of changes are needed that cannot practically be explained individually. I would be interested in your thoughts. CorporateM (Talk) 23:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS reliable source

Hi MastCell,

I was wondering if this article indexed at Pubmed was a legit source. We are trying to delineate what constitutes "fringe" practice and to what extent the practitioners hold those beliefs. Regards, DVMt (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC) EDIT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922917/

US Politics Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is currently hearing a case relating to US Politics. The case information page is here. Your name was mentioned, so this is a courtesy post to inform you of this fact. The evidence phase of the case is now closed, but the Workshop is not yet closed. It is scheduled to close today, but if you choose to respond, we can extend the deadline. Please let me know if you plan to respond. For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't actually find where my name is mentioned, but I'm sure you'll let me know if I end up topic-banned or anything. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I make a somewhat cynical observation about this header? "US Politics" + "Arbitration" has to be among the most dreadful possible mixes imaginable to Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, MastCell, it looks to me like the only mention of you is a link to your talk archives from the evidence page that doesn't actually mention you in any specific way. If that helps at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. (The link to this) Sorry about the bother, but this case doesn't have a formal list of parties, so an arb asked me to review the evidence, and I decided to err on the side of caution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. I don't see what that "evidence" is supposed to demonstrate, except that Collect has a less-than-endearing habit of bragging about his undergraduate minor in math. I hope ArbCom found it useful. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Table 3

You wrote that you thought you'd finally figured out Table 3 of the paper rating Wikipedia medical articles, also that you were thinking of contacting the authors. Did they ever say anything? The problem I have with Table 3 is that "concussion" is specifically listed in the text as the good article, yet the stats for concussion are 40 24 22 26 62 50, i.e. huge levels of "discord" in every category. By contrast the category before it had one reviewer who found no discord at all. This is being discussed at [54] and your input would be great there! Wnt (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Marco Rubio talk

Should this disruptive section be collapsed? Or removed? Writegeist (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: section has been removed. Writegeist (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sam Slovick and Deepak Chopra

Since you made what's currently the last edit on Sam Slovick, you may be interested in this, in another part of Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 08:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads-up. Other than fixing Slovick's spelling errors (and musing at the irony of finding them in a self-promotional biography extolling his facility with the written word), I don't really care to be involved. Given some of the personalities involved, I need to stick to rule #1. It is interesting, though, isn't it? For example, SlimVirgin understands that it's wrong for BP to pay someone to promote them on Wikipedia, but feels it's OK for Deepak Chopra to pay someone to promote him on Wikipedia. Likewise, Cla68 would scream bloody murder if someone cited the Huffington Post to disparage a climate-change "skeptic", but if the Huffington Post prints something that serves his immediate agenda then he's all "You are aware, aren't you, that the Huffington Post has been awarded the Pulitzer Prize?" This isn't about BLP sources or approaches to paid editing; it's about cynical gamesmanship. And I don't care enough about the topic (Chopra) to play their game. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A lack of self-awareness is always a possibility. Take from a professionally cynical tactical game player.--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found that SlimVirgin has always been quick to defend new age material and new age positions, particularly quantum mysticism. You can imagine what a field day she had when she read "How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival" and proceeded to stick content from it everywhere. As a physicist who works with quantum mechanics, misuse of the word quantum is particularly makes me twitch. Edit: Try to find a coherent objection to Josephson in Brian Josephson (which met wikipedias good article criteria apparently) which actually explains why scientists objects to some of the positions that Josephson holds. Instead the narrative is one where the critics are re-positioned as people only providing one-liners of ridicule to a man while Josephson gets most of the rebuttals and replies. "Several physicists criticized him again in 2001" never lists why anyone criticized him, but then it goes on to provide a big paragraph of a quote from Josephson. The word "unorthodox" is used for its religious connotations, about challenging orthodoxy. , Second Quantization (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say it's been my experience that SlimVirgin and I have very different approaches to scientific material. I think it's just a matter of different worldviews. For whatever reason, I'm reminded of a passage in Ian McEwan's Solar where the protagonist, a prominent physicist, sits on a panel meeting including a sociologist specializing in "science studies". The sociologist begins by contending that genes are not "real" and do not have an independent, objective existence, but rather are social constructs "entexted" by scientists using exclusionary tools of meaning (you know, like flow cytometers and immunofluoresence).

One of the scientists on the panel responds by citing Huntington's disease and its genetic etiology, to which the sociologist argues that disease itself is a social construct, currently viewed through the prism of molecular biology but previously constructed as a matter of demonic possession or divine disfavor. (The implication, of course, is that all of these "social constructs" are equally valid). Of the scientists on the panel, McEwan writes:

They tended to take the conventional view, that the world existed independently, in all its mystery, awaiting description and explanation, though that did not prevent the observer from leaving thumbprints all over the field of observation. Beard had heard rumors that strange ideas were commonplace among the liberal arts departments. It was said that humanities students were routinely taught that science was just one more belief system, no more or less truthful than religion or astrology. He had always thought that this must be a slur against his colleagues on the arts side. The results surely spoke for themselves. Who was going to submit to a vaccine designed by a priest?

Regarding quantum mysticism and Chopra, I guess the reason I can't get too worked up is that I see Chopra as fairly anodyne. He doesn't try to talk people out of medically effective therapies. The treatments he oversells are probably mostly harmless. The worst you could say about him is that he's enriched himself tremendously by promoting health claims that don't have much (or any) scientific backing, but people are free to spend their money however they want. I'd take a dozen Chopras over one Dr. Oz. :P

I guess the real "hidden cost" of Chopra's popularity is that he enables a strain of scientific illiteracy which is already depressingly dominant in American culture. Books full of quantum-mystical word salad aren't inherently dangerous, but to anyone who cares about the state of critical thinking and scientific literacy, they're a powerful irritant. Our recent history is full of tragic examples of the harmful power of scientific ignorance, from vaccine denialism and pertussis deaths, to likely-unstoppable climate change, to the ease with which the tobacco industry covered up the harms of smoking, to the hundreds of thousands of deaths attributable to AIDS denialism. And now I've totally lost my train of thought... :P MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Britain First, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your remarks

My interests are not "Ugg boots and politics." My interests are journalism, reliable sources and as a hobby, genericized brand names (such as "Hoover," "Kleenex," "Q-Tip," "Xerox" and "Band-Aid") and the process of how they lose their trademark status. I may discuss other topics, such as Ugg boots and politics, whenever they brush up against these interests.

I ran into the P&W accusation at Talk:Ugg boots, so it seems fair to discuss it here. Judging from his contributions, he is fond of the Tea Party and sex scandals involving teenage boys, two topics I endeavor to avoid. Mainly you'll find me on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and when a political dispute arrives there in a huff, you'll find me .... discussing the reliability of the sources used.

I did take exception to your characterization of Emily Miller. I've read parts of her book through online excerpts and finding a copy on a friend's coffee table, but knew of her well before that, as she was nearly swept up in the Abramoff scandal due to nothing more than who she was dating at the time. She was a victim of circumstance and it almost ruined her career.

Before that she was working at ABC News and NBC News for several years, with well established bona fides as a genuine journalist, and an award for investigative journalism. Her book is certainly not the "polemic screed" you described and I suspect you've never read it, but relied instead on some critic who sharply disagreed with her political position.

She was victimized in her own home by an intruder. There are two proverbs in American politics: "A Democrat is a Republican who got arrested," and "A Republican is a Democrat who got mugged." The latter seems to fit her. After that harrowing experience, she avoided the conventional, militant feminist route of bitching, whining and expecting someone to solve her problems for her. Instead, she chose to own the problem, and accept responsibility for her own personal safety. I find that admirable.

As a law-abiding citizen in DC, she found it to be almost impossible to legally buy a firearm for self-defense. It was at that point that she decided to start bitching and whining, and she does so reasonably and in a professional manner. The title is rather unfortunate but I suspect that was a decision by the publisher, not the author. Reliable 1too (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You know, up until a month or two ago, if you'd gone off on an unprovoked rant about "militant feminists... bitching, whining, and expecting someone to solve [their] problems for [them]", I'd probably have just written you off as a dumbass and ignored you. But in the post-Isla Vista world, I've started to view this sort of casual misogyny as actively creepy and intolerable, rather than just distasteful. I'm not sure why you're fired up about "militant feminists". Nor do I understand why you think that the only "admirable" response for a crime victim is to buy a gun. And at this point I don't really care for you to elaborate.

As for Emily Miller, I started but could not bring myself to finish her book (because I found it to be a dreary hyper-partisan screed), so I guess we're more or less even there. I see you have the residual integrity not to deny that you're Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) (but not enough integrity to refrain from evasive non-denials). Go on evading your block; at this point, I don't really care enough to bother about it, but don't expect a warm welcome here. MastCell ^Talk 01:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I care enough to bother, and have blocked the sock. Thank you for what you said about casual misogyny, MastCell; you are precisely correct in your identification of it. Risker (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppet Reliable

I noticed that you struck through some sock puppet comments in an RSN discussion. Thank you! Could you do the same in these other two discussions? [55][56] Lightbreather (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it myself today [57][58] per wp:tpoc. I hope that was okay... I read the Talk page guidelines page a couple times and I think it was okay (under "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies.") Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I think you're OK. In general, any editor can strike or remove posts from sockpuppets. Of course, I did once get raked over the coals by one of our illustrious Arbitrators for doing so, but that's a story for another time. MastCell ^Talk 02:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

GoRight

Hi. Since you closed the GoRight unban discussion on AN, could you please reblock GoRight? He was unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in that discussion. Thanks. BMK (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, will do. MastCell ^Talk 02:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, MastCell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Stalking range of IPs

Hey MastCell - Lately I'm being harassed by an IP range in 174.236, who are persistently reverting my edits on Courage UK and Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism without explanation in the edit summary or the talk page. While of course it's an IP range that keeps changing address so it's hard to track its previous activity, it doesn't appear to have been working on either page before, so it clearly followed me to both based on ???. I doubt RPP would protect the pages on the basis of this harassment, but I know admins are also often reluctant to block ranges. How should I handle this situation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(You also asked me to let you know if Esoglou continued to make snide remarks about my sexual orientation, and I'm sorry to report he's done it again.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Two options: range block or semi-protection. I'm not comfortable placing rangeblocks, but you could ask for assistance from a more technically savvy admin to see if this would be reasonable. Alternatively, I'm comfortable semi-protecting Courage UK (I'd probably wait and watch on homosexuality and Roman Catholicism since the level of IP edit-warring is probably not severe enough at present to trigger semi-protection). Regarding Esoglu, if you provide a diff I will review it. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection, hopefully it will do. Re Esoglou, [59] - without the context of Esoglou's repeated targeting of my sexual orientation or his having sent me a sexual image in the past, it wouldn't seem like anything, but it does stand out given that context. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. While that diff displays profound ignorance on Esoglu's part, I don't think ignorance per se is actionable (if it were, Wikipedia would be a ghost town). MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I mean, obviously he's wrong about the usage of the word; I'm referring more to the your circle language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, having reviewed that comment, I would respectfully suggest that you are making too much of a basically minor matter. BTW, I'm not Esoglou, or the person who has been reverting you at the articles you mentioned above. 122.60.167.21 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The 174 IP range was quite large, covering the Atlantic sides of Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland, including Washington DC. The person is using their Verizon service up and down the Eastern Seaboard to stalk Roscelese. Three of the five were 174.236.22x, one was 174.236.197, but there was one 174.255 from Pennsylvania. We should keep an eye on this person as they are likely to resurface. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note that in this thread: Talk:Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Note_to_Roscelese both ImprovingWiki and Esoglou insist on continually discussing Roscelese despite it having no bearing on article content. Esoglou's modus operandi means they are very annoying; he pretends I am agreeing with him when I am not: such as here. Here he displays WP:IDHT by ignoring my large rebuttal, saying that a different editor (Dominus) in particular hasn't provided a rebuttal. Second Quantization (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Violation of iban

Letting you know about this because I think you were the last person to block for it, but let me know if I should direct this to someone else - but Badmintonhist has again stalked me to an article in order to revert me, despite a huge number of warnings and two prior blocks for stalking. [60] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the stalking part, but you really shouldn't make that edit without the sources first, especially considering it's a contentious issue in US politics. A quick search on google news popped up no specific usage of that phrase to me. A more relevant article would be a "list of excess use of police force" or some such. Whether it rises to a "police riot" we should leave to the secondary sources, Second Quantization (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As you'll notice, I just added a number of sources. But it's really irrelevant to the stalking. Badmintonhist is not allowed to revert my edits. He has abused the privilege and lost it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The stalking is as blatant as it can be. Badmintonhist edited the article a total of two times, each time directly following Roscelese, and each time removing text added by Roscelese. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the TEXT (the verrrry flawed text, I might add) that I deleted was originally added by an anonymous editor with all of four edits to his name . . . I mean number. Ol' Ros had merely added a LINK to it. An edit that she had designated as MINOR, by the way. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely blatant. You deleted additions from Roscelese each time you showed up, which was directly after Roscelese added something. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. My only question is should it have been longer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Casliber. I agree that this is an obvious violation of the interaction ban; there's no credible explanation for Badmintonhist's behavior other than checking Rosclese's contribs and following her around to revert her. I'd probably have blocked him indefinitely, since it's obvious no amount of negative reinforcement is going to break through his obsession with hounding Roscelese. This is Badmintonhist's third block for hounding Roscelese, and that's on top of a number of other hounding incidents where he got off with just a warning (e.g. [61], [62], [63]). At some point, enough is enough and it's silly (not to mention unfair to other editors) to keep expecting he'll change his behavior.

That said, a few months ago I was involved in a content dispute with Badmintonhist at Becky Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since I never know which definition of "involvement" ArbCom is going to favor on a given day, I've elected to play it safe and not take any further administrative action with regard to Badmintonhist at this juncture. MastCell ^Talk 14:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved with Badmintonhist and Roscelese as far as I can remember (except I think I may have upbraided R about edit warring once, if that counts), and if it turns out somebody thinks I'm wrong about that, we can all just enjoy some invigorating ANI/RFAR/desysopping drama. The IBan is completely clear: Consensus is that Badmintonhist is banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way. In addition, they may not revert or undo Roscelese's edit in any way. My italics. There have been enough second chances IMO. I have blocked Badmintonhist indefinitely. Theoretically, I should have discussed with Cas before extending his block, but by his comment above, it doesn't look like it's necessary. Hope you don't mind, Casliber. Of course I'll retract my block if you wish. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

Thank you all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking along those lines Bish as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Rick Perry

Hey, this isn't an accusation or anything, I'm just confused. I was under the impression based on some of the things NK has said that you are acting as an administrator on this article. But then I see you're making some comments about content. Is NK just confused about what you were saying?--v/r - TP 22:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. If you ever find yourself wondering "is NK just confused?"... trust me, the answer is going to be yes. :) Seriously, I've never acted as an admin on the Rick Perry article and have no intention of doing so. (I also don't have any intention of editing the article, particularly given the current climate there, although I may continue to comment about content on the talkpage). I have no idea why NK keeps harping on me being an admin. He seems to be both very angry and very confused, which is an unproductive combination. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Meh, it's very tough to work with him. WP:MPOV comes to mind. Dunning–Kruger effect too. He'd be a fine editor if he learned to collaborative with others. Perhaps he'll see my remarks here and get a clue.--v/r - TP 01:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for getting the ball rolling with this. That article has needed an enema for years. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The fact that we're providing misleading, and sometimes outright false, medical information to a particularly vulnerable population through that article has been a source of concern for me since I first arrived here. That article is the most persistently egregious example of flagrant disregard for WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR that I've seen on this site. I'm glad that other editors are currently working on it... but the pessimist in me notes that this has happened periodically before: other editors wander by and are aghast at the state of the article; they work on it for awhile; but eventually RoyBoy wears them down and they leave, and he goes back to doing what he does. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

"hope—the most important thing in life"
Thank you, master of edit summaries, for quality contributions to articles on medicine, for advice on arbitrary arbitration, your compliments, for placing "hope—the most important thing in life" on top, but not without The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 February 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 601st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The words about hope aren't mine, obviously—they're Khodorkovsky's. But still, inspiring, right? Mostly a reminder to myself to be less cynical. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I used enough quotation marks to clarify it was a quote, - It was a good thing to quote the day the infobox case closed ;) - A year later, most people see that it was much ado about little, see? - Now, I am still called infuriating when I speak of hope too much, but I keep it up. A friend died in real life, to put all this in perspective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get too uncynical MastCell. It is your cynicalness that has kept me going more than once! Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Help please

Could you please block user:2601:6:6F00:538:9CA:E037:BEFD:3674 who has been a real pest at the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article. Thanks Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, but let me know if s/he continues to be a problem. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)