User talk:MastCell/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MastCell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

ok ... spent a long day at the hospital - doctors - xray stuff and all. Your help getting me there was invaluable; and if you want me to drop you an email with details I will ... but just wanted to say thanks. — Ched :  ?  03:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched - I'm glad it was helpful. Please, as time permits, drop me an email and let me know how things are going. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hope everything's ok Ched. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you Basalisk .. things went very well. and I dropped you an update in your email Mast., ty again. — Ched :  ?  17:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mast Cell,

I ran into something, and you came to mind. I experienced some very strange behaviour, and feel strongly that others shouldn't have to experience the same. The strange behaviour was here, during a pretty routine AfD, and came from User: Colonel Warden. I want to bring this to the attention of someone who can look into whether this editing style is helpful and should continue, or not. To be very truthful, I've angered people on Wikipedia and am not new to this place, but I have never received so many accusations of devious intentions until running into this guy. Can you advise? petrarchan47tc 23:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing new here, Warden often uses a mixture of spurious arguments, often which are aimed at the nominator. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make it OK. We should strive to protect Wikipedia editors from coming into contact with crap like this, imo. petrarchan47tc 00:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The name ColonelWarden rings a bell, but I can't really attach many specifics. My recollection is that he's a long-term editor with a checkered past who's very difficult to deal with. But that describes about 85% of the current Wikipedia community, perhaps myself included. My generic advice is the same in these situations: don't let him get under your skin, as much as that's possible. It often feels like you need to argue with people who are being difficult or unreasonable, but a lot of times it's better to step back and trust that everyone else will also recognize the person as difficult and unreasonable. Sorry I can't be more helpful, and good luck. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It helps to know "it is what it is". There are a high number of cranky crazies, I'm afraid, and it appears that like trolls on the Internet, we have to learn to live with them(?). Thanks for your time, it is most appreciated. petrarchan47tc 00:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, in my 7 years here I've probably encountered more of the dark, crazy, irrational side of humanity than anyone should. I'm not saying it's OK to be treated badly, but sometimes you have to pick your battles and figure out what's really important, versus what's not. If there's one unifying characteristic of Wikipedians, it's that they're really bad at differentiating the forest from the trees. The community here has an almost total lack of perspective and an inside-the-bubble mentality, which becomes most obvious in dealing with issues with real-world substance (like conflicts of interest, or the issue of sexism, or revenge editing of BLPs).

Dealing with the community here, I often feel like a token ambassador from the Real World, or an anthropologist doing field work in a deeply foreign culture whose fundamental assumptions about life are radically different from my own. But in the end, Wikipedia doesn't need more people with thin skins and infinite capacities for outrage. We're full up with those. Wikipedia needs more people who know when to let things go (and, likewise, when something is important enough to really fight for). MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That all makes a lot of sense. And here I am again with an issue. I swear I am not looking for these! Like you say, there might be a preponderance of ' bubbles' here. Bear with me, this is a two-parter. There was a worldwide protest this past weekend called March Against Monsanto. There has been a lot of hassle in terms of getting the Wikipedia page written, and I accidentally discovered there is some major passion for GMOs on Wikipedia. That's fine and all, but it seems to have blinded some to the purpose of the article. Here's my question #1: For an article about a protest, is it appropriate to discuss protesters' concerns, using articles discussing the protest as a source? I thought so, but now the article is tagged with "fringe theory - doesn't give the facts" and a few references have been removed since they mention science that has supposedly been disproved. The only idea that came to me was an RfC, but maybe there is an easier way to deal with this question, in other words, maybe the answer is very obvious to someone more familiar with policies.

Later edit: I realized I didn't leave you enough information. The protest wasn't covered by media, for the most part, and articles are limited. There were a handful of quintessential articles that described the movement and its issues in depth. The HuffPost ref that was removed was written by one of the main players in the movement. (Just wanted to give you some context.) Also, I am not the only person who is noticing this slant. petrarchan47tc 05:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Having worked on the article this week, I experienced this crew of editors who are very passionate about the safety of GMOs, and saw that their work has given Wikipedia as a whole a very pro-GMO slant, which is not representative of the global view (the majority of the EU, for example, has banned GMOs). Question #2: Is there an administrator's noticeboard to discuss a large issue such as this? Thank you again, RWA (Real World Ambassador), and I do think this is something worth fighting for. petrarchan47tc 03:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no "crew". You are now editing a science topic. What you are encountering are the editors who are knowledgeable about science topics and some regulars of the Fringe theories noticeboard, who edit topics where there have been recent POV pushes and undue weight given to fringe views. It might be good to reflect on what personal opinions and preconceptions that you might be bringing to the table. If GMOs are safe, it is not a slant to say GMOs are safe, and vice versa. Stop thinking of this as "Pro-GM" vs "Anti-GM" or some such, it is not a slant to describe reality. I suggest looking through the peer reviewed literature, or look at the news in Science (journal) and Nature (journal) to get a feel for what the scientific consensus is. Here is an anti-GM editor rejecting the journal Genetics because it has the word genetics in it [1] and instead relies on the huffington post. These are the people that you have on your side of the discussion, contrast that with those who are disagreeing with you. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"You are now editing a science topic" Oh really? The only statements made are: Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences and Supporters of the movement expressed concern about Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds and their effect on bee population...citing connections between GM seeds and colony collapse disorder - these are statements sourced to articles about the protest and the beliefs behind it. Both statements have since been reverted to remove any mention of studies. I don't need to be a scientist to know something is wrong here. In no way does this quality as "in-depth" coverage. IRWolfie quoted on the talk page: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." to support his contention that we must mention 'GMOs are definitely safe, no question' alongside protester's grievances. A Wiki editor does not need to know about GMO science or the debate surrounding it to simply build an article about a protest (unless the article were to delve deeply into the anti-GMO claims, which it does not). The tension over simply telling the story of this protest has unearthed an obvious pro-GMO ideology on Wiki and I have been followed around anywhere I've attempted to discuss it. That Wiki has no answer for this is no surprise at this point. petrarchan47tc 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

First off, I admit to not being very conversant with the controversy surrounding GMOs, so I don't have any particularly informed opinions on the subject. In general, the fewer high-quality reliable sources cover a subject, the harder it is to write a decent article about it, and I suspect that difficulty is coming into play with March Against Monsanto.

There is a more general issue, though, which is our handling of "peri-scientific" topics - for example, articles on notable proponents of or dissidents from specific scientific ideas, or groups/individuals involved with the political aspects of science. It's pretty clear how the parent article on genetically modified organism (or climate change, or intelligent design) should be written: we present the views of reputable expert bodies (the National Academy of Sciences says X, the European Union says Y, etc.) It's less clear how we handle articles on protests, or protest groups, or specific individuals active in the controversy. Do we need to add a disclaimer to every biographical article indicating the relationship of the individual's views to the scientific mainstream? This issue came up in the climate-change case, in the handling of biographies of individual climate-change "skeptics", for example.

Unfortunately, there are no centralized venues to handle these sorts of fundamental content issues. It's a major weakness of Wikipedia's model: the assumption that any content dispute can be worked out via discussion and consensus is clearly faulty. That said, it's worth recognizing that there are good editors on both "sides" of the issue, and when battle lines are drawn then it becomes impossible for those reasonable editors to work together. The best approach is to identify and work with reasonable editors on the other "side" while ignoring (and thus marginalizing) the unreasonable, tendentious, or extreme voices. But that's easier said than done. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I will ponder this, thank you, Mast Cell. petrarchan47tc 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

[Tangent; ec.] Because discussions on Wikipedia are asynchronous, text-based, and unmoderated, there is no way to distinguish between an editor ignoring one's comment, or failing to notice it, or silently (dis)agreeing with it, or even being away from the talk page entirely. This means that ignoring comments is, unfortunately, not particularly effective in delivering the social cue to another that they are being marginalized. The more unreasonable editors are apt to interpret silence as assent or capitulation to their arguments, and as license to proceed with their aims. But responding to them provides a psychological reward, unless that response is negative enough to overcome the reward—and that will almost inevitably cross the threshold of incivility. It's a difficult conundrum that I believe lies at the root of many of the conflicts we see here. alanyst 17:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good point, particularly since the most obnoxious or difficult editors are often the most lacking self-awareness and social clue and thus the least likely to get the point. And I agree that these editors tend to misinterpret polite or indirect suggestions and respond only to frank, if not frankly uncivil, language.

On the other hand, during a very active discussion with numerous posts per day, I've found that systematically ignoring obnoxious or tendentious editors can be effective, for my own sanity if for nothing else. For editors who seem particularly bellicose and clueless, I've sometimes spelled it out with a reference to WP:SHUN. There's exactly this sort of situation going on right now at Talk:Abortion, for example. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at The Rambling Man's edits and the nomination at In The News. You can either add the refs or leave the tags. ANI is not going to support a notion that refs are unnecessary. Again, multiple refs can be done easily with the ref name="name" template. I suggest you use that rather than complain about tags. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. The article isn't important enough to me to make it worth putting up with your attitude. I really cannot grasp your mindset, or how you think your actions are productive or helpful, but I hope our paths don't cross in the future. I'll make a note to avoid articles you are "improving" from now on. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey MastCell - re your comment, I clarified on the talk page of the Geneva article that YHR didn't strictly insert a falsehood there, as I thought from my edit summary. I jumped the gun because users had done that in the past. The original text of the declaration mentions conception, but it's since been amended; YHR did state in the edit that this was the original text, no falsehood, it's just that it'd be better to use the current text. Mind changing your comment so neither of us falsely accuse anyone? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternately, looking at the article history, perhaps I am misremembering entirely, or thinking of a different article. Aaaaargh! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

YHR's edit was misleading and unsourced; it leaves the impression that the current version of the Declaration describes life as beginning at conception, which is of course untrue. But I see your point that it's not a "falsehood" strictly speaking. Thanks for the note. MastCell ^Talk 03:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, MastCell comes crashing down on an article and pretends he/she can make history vanish. He/she removed the Declaration of Geneva as it was agreed to in 1948 following the Nazi Doctors Trial, because clearly he/she doesn't like the FACT that it included the following lines:

“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, form the time of its conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I practice my profession with conscience and dignity.”

This editor has consistently endeavored to delete and/or block medical science from appearing on any abortion related pages, and now presumes that he/she is in charge of deleting world history also. If anyone such as myself dares to mention either, he/she runs to the censors.. Is this really what wikipedia is all about? Deleting and blocking medical science AND world history? That he/she would have the gall to actually accuse someone else of doing same is really absurd.

I clearly described that it was the ORIGINAL version, and made no attempt to edit the current version whatsoever.

http://www.firstdonoharm.org.uk/declaration

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=lusol_fac_pubs

YourHumanRights (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, point out where I removed any material from Declaration of Geneva. As far as I can tell, I've never edited the article in my life, but then I spend so much time deleting medical information from Wikipedia that I sometimes lose track. MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review your post on my talk page entitled "factually inaccurate material." It is YOU who was factually inaccurate, and made a false accusation. Meanwhile, you are resisting updating the abortion article with factual published science that already appears (and you have edited) on the preterm birth page. 69.127.105.172 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's odd - you didn't answer my question. You seem to believe that I've removed material from Declaration of Geneva, as part of my comprehensive effort to rewrite history. I don't think I've ever even edited the article. Could you point out which edits you have in mind? MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hiya MastCell. I just proposed a new policy on AN, with a mention of your "Cynics' Guide" as an alternative destination for the principle I'm offering.[2] I'm not spamming it generally, but since you're honorably mentioned in there, I thought you might care to comment<subliminally>support support support</subliminally>. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

See Ken Alibek, esp. the controversy section. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not much about the actual science though – just the standard problems when you get a person who is trying to write a hagiography together with someone who is trying to write a hit piece. It needs quite a bit of cleanup, or in other words, is a standard BLP. NW (Talk) 01:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've done some editing to help out. I'm not so sure about deleting the bibliography. I'm opposed to using Wikipedia as a CV posting, but I'm also not really into deleting verifiable information, so maybe some selective pruning is in order? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=559273998#User:Parallel_and_the_Energy_Catalyzer_article.

MastCell You topic banned me. Your note says I may also “use the administrator's noticeboard to appeal this sanction if you feel it has been placed unfairly.” Well I do, but I can’t see any relevant place to appeal on that board. I find editor AndyTheGrump long on opinion and impervious to facts, so even if reinstated I don’t think it is worth pursuing. The piece as it stands has factual errors as well as those of Wikipedia policy. This is unfortunate as up to 7000 people seek guidance on this topic per day.

I understand what argumentum ad hominem means. AndyTheGrump denies it, but he still has not answered the various points I brought up, in particular the referenced errors about Rossi still believing nickel and hydrogen combined to form copper, the cherry picked quotation from the stale dated PopSci article and possibly libelous defamation of his character, suggesting he is a criminal and a conman. Instead he goes after the messenger saying that I am clueless, a sock puppet, have threatened others (which I haven’t), that I should “go away and learn about how science works,” asking I have some connection to Rossi or the testers (I don’t) and accusing me of using the talk page as a soapbox.

My major complaint is that the article is not neutral. Give mainstream views prominence, but at least give something from the other side. Don’t cherry pick the most negative bits from the articles quoted as was done for Featherstone’s piece, giving an erroneous view. This is not even the current article from PopSci that is much more favorable. AndyTheGrump gives much weight to LENR being fringe science, but I believe it to be emerging from this category when Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center says LENR is proven beyond dispute, as does Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and others.

There have been two independent tests of the E-Cat funded by the reputable Elforsk R&D organization. It might have been better to call them engineering tests in order to avoid the misunderstanding by some editors, who felt it should have been a scientific test to determine the physics of the reaction. The test never claimed that and was conducted properly as an engineering test, as I know from firsthand experience with scanning IR instruments. These tests showed the E-Cat worked with a high degree of confidence. A further continuous six month test to start this Summer has been funded by Elforsk.

AndyTheGrump made much of me posting a long excerpt from Engineering News. To start with, I have permission from Kenneth Creamer, CEO of Engineering News to do this and secondly, like the piece I wrote myself, this was an effort to reach a compromise through discussion. I had no intention of showing Leonardo Corp’s address in the final piece, this was an attempt to show the E-Cat was real and not “fringe science.” You may indeed order a 1 MW plant from there with four months delivery and currently they are offering a 1 MW plant free to a user in Europe on the understanding it will be open to the public.

I made the mistake of posting on AndyTheGrump’s page that I apologized for ascribing User Edison’s accusation of me threatening someone, to him, after he said I shouldn’t post there. (It is now deleted) Possibly there is some Wikipedia rule against civil discourse. I still don’t know how to reply to Edison as I don’t see any edit link. So, as of this morning I can no longer edit the E-Cat page although I have not been informed of this. (I have now received notice) I guess that the E-Cat will become accepted in six to twelve months but I won’t hold my breath to be reinstated and for AndyTheGrump to be banned instead. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to appeal the topic ban, you can simply open a new thread at the administrator's noticeboard. In your post, provide a link to the topic-ban notice on your page, and explain why you think it was unfairly placed. I will stay out of the discussion and allow other editors to judge the appropriateness of the topic ban. If there's a consensus of uninvolved editors that the topic ban was unfair or improper, then I'll vacate it. I would prefer you not continue to use my talkpage to promote Leonardo Corp's products. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mastcell, Parallel shared this comment with me, because I had left them some supportive comments. I'd like to share the first part of my reply:

Parallel, I am concerned you experienced lapses from WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. It is important to protect newcomers from goading, impatience, insults, and failures to WP:Assume good faith for multiple reasons. Not only is doing so the right thing to do, but if we allow rogue elements of the existing contributor base to get away with subjecting newcomers to goading, impatience, insults, and failures to assume good faith we risk giving those newcomers the impression that these behaviours are OK. I encourage you not to follow the example of those who goaded you, and failed to assume good faith on your part.

I really do see Parallel as a more of a victim than a vandal, and I think it would be in both the interest of their future participation here, and in the interest of the project in general, if an administrator were also to guide them as to which of the behaviors of their challengers they should not emulate. Would you have the time or interest to offer that kind of advice? Geo Swan (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Geo Swan informed me of the fact that he was in communication with Parallel, I think I should comment here. It appears that Parallel may have misunderstood the extent of the topic ban, and it probably needs to be made clear to him that the ban includes user talk pages - his post on Geo Swan's talk page, made after the ban was imposed, [3] might well have been seen as a breach of the ban, in that he is discussing the E-Cat. To be clear, I an not asking that any action be taken, but I think that it might be advisable for the extent of the ban to be made explicit, for further reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified that the topic ban extends to all pages on Wikipedia, including user-talk pages. Geo Swan, I don't see Parallel as a victim; I see him as someone whose sole interest in this project appears to be in using it to promote a single fringe idea, and as such he appears to be a poor fit for this particular project. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and to see him show a wider interest in the encyclopedia, and the topic ban is meant to allow him that opportunity. In the meantime, though, he needs to avoid contributing where he has a conflict of interest, and refrain from using Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy or to raise the profile of a specific fringe concept. Those are the behaviors I'd like to see him emulate. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I suppose the abovementioned topic ban is indefinite? That's what I put here. (Feel free to massage any part of my note.) Maybe you want to put the expiration time in your notice on User talk:Parallel also? Bishonen | talk 07:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC).

Yes, it's meant to be indefinite, although it can be appealed at any time. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

HI MastCell. Regarding your block of CSDarrow, I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, you might want to amend your block notice and comments here. The article is Men's movement, not Men's rights movement. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah. My fault. The article-probation header at Talk:Men's movement links to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, which is probably where I went astray. I'm not sure it affects the end result, but I'll amend the block notice at User talk:CSDarrow. Did you have a concern about the block itself, outside my mis-statement about the page on which the edit-warring occurred? I just want to be sure I'm not blowing off a more serious concern. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The block was sound. Per the probation terms, you can unblock him or another admin may unblock him with your approval. Otherwise he needs a community consensus to do so based on an appeal to WP:ANI. I'm going to decline the block, even though he'll claim I'm WP:INVOLVED based on the copyright issue; as far as I'm concerned, I'm not.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Drmies beat me to it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, see my comment at the now-closed ANEW regarding CSDarrow's editing style. Also, based on a number of his comments, he acts as if Wikipedia should operate like a court of law; he invokes the legal system quite a bit. It sounds like he's a lawyer and I noticed he's a WikiProject Law member --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jessica Yee. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Prodego ^talk 22:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That took longer than I expected. :) Thank you for the notification; I've commented at the deletion review. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please block User:100loves, with an expiry set of indefinite. Because the user changed unsourced genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.164.131.28 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I became the go-to policeman for people who edit-war over musical genres. I don't know who's "right" and who's "wrong" this time around, and please don't take this as a reflection of the technical merits of your complaint, but... the fact that people spend a lot of time fighting over musical genre names on Wikipedia has always depressed me, because it's one of the most visible reminders that our community is totally lacking in anything resembling a sense of perspective. I'm sorry; I'm going to have to ask you to contact another admin about this particular instance. MastCell ^Talk 00:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@MastCell: Ah, how innocent you are. If you really want a challenge, try to figure out whether it's the Sega Genesis or Sega Mega Drive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty classic: at Talk:Sega Genesis, they held an meta-RfC on the question of whether it would ever be possible to hold a productive RfC on the article name. I don't know what the right answer is, and if there were consoles before the Dreamcast then I don't really care to know about them anyway. MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well of course there were... NW (Talk) 02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The length of that talk page FAQ is something special indeed. NW (Talk) 02:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, I had a Nintendo 64 (in fact, it's probably still laying around somewhere in mothballs), but I was thinking that it came after the Dreamcast. My mistake. MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness Petrol, Corn and Pants don't have fanboys. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Also see Linux and the effort to rename it GNU/Linux, which mainly seems driven by non-regulars; see for example Talk:Linux/Name. I wonder how much the GNU Project and Richard Stallman support the silliness. These examples offer a little perspective: it's not just Wikipedia, it's people in general (take a look at Congress). I'll admit I sometimes feel a twinge of rage when I see a page full of British words with unnecessary extra vowels. Back on the Linux topic, a priori, I sort of expected people who regularly type arcane commands to the computer-gods to be a little more mature. Perhaps that was the opposite of a reasonable assumption, given what what experience has taught me about the Linux community, although I'm happy in the KDE world these days. II | (t - c) 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's people in general. In a lot of ways, Wikipedia is an offshoot of the free-software movement, so it's not surprising to see that subculture's flaws reflected here. We're talking about a lot of the same people who belong to both groups. Congress is a special case, and much less interesting - after all, it's doesn't take much effort to understand why James Inhofe (for example) behaves as he does, but I will never, ever understand how a human being can spend dozens or hundreds of hours fighting over road-naming conventions or the differences between an em-dash and an en-dash.

Anyhow, it's normal and healthy to feel angry when confronted with British spelling. We won the Revolutionary War (and let's say we tied the War of 1812), so we shouldn't have to put up with bullshit like "haematology" and "aluminium". But you're able to control that anger, at least as best I can tell. You somehow manage not to spend all your time on Wikipedia fighting about British vs. American spelling, because you have a sense of perspective and understand that not all battles are equally worth fighting. It feels like most Wikipedians lack that understanding. I can't speak to the Linux community, because I have no experience with it, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a lot of the same general issues that we see here. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, you're back! I suppose it does change it's nature a little out of context like that… feel free to remove it if it makes you feel stalked and harassed. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC).

This anger is simply vowel envy. We love our extra vowels and they love themselves too. Occassionally they unite in a pair bond of blissful typographic marriage. Much of the disharmony on Wikipedia can be traced back to its incorrect spelling and the loss of that loving vowel bond. You guys can't even handle one vowel properly. I mean how hard is it to say Colin? One day, the vowel atrophy that afflicts your nation will be complete. MastCell should have a few consonants to cling onto, but II should be worried. -- Cln 20:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

omg srsly? MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Truth be told, THS B D RL RSN TXT MSGS R WRTN LK THS: It's because Americans are the most technologically powerful nation on earth, and America is rolling out a global anti-vowel initiative via the increasingly pervasive use of text messaging. I think we all know that the real reason Britain lost the Revolutionary War was because they couldn't find an Aldis lamp operator who knew the code for the Æ ligature and therefore lost an entire naval crew due for lack of a hæmotologist. Zad68 20:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Americans are the most technologically powerful nation on earth"? Don't make me laugh. Your nation would still be furtively downloading ASCII porn if a Brit hadn't helped you discover its, erm, potential. -- Colin°^Talk 21:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always wondered whether Berners-Lee would receive a Nobel Prize, although inventing the Web doesn't fit neatly into any of the award categories. Physics, maybe. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, so you're saying that pornography based on photographic images is now available?!! There goes my weekend! Zad68 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Just wait till you see what passes for serving a "reasonable education purpose" on Wikimedia Commons... :| MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh that great repository of Free Cultural Works. There's an example of where the wisdom of the crowd slides downhill when the crowd consists of mainly nerdy young men. Colin°^Talk 09:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile back at the ranch ... "100loves" ... really? There must be a pill for that. Got your email, coincidentally, just as I was visiting old haunts ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:MastCell/user-rights.js ... ty. — Ched :  ?  09:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Super-handy. Most useful 5 minutes of coding I've ever done. Which isn't saying much. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on WP and your contributions to the discussion on the BLP notice board about David Gorski here and on the talk page for the article here. I would be grateful if you would consider taking part in the current discussion or contributing to editing the article.--MrBill3 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I should just restrict myself to pointing out the apparent error in using Web of Knowledge. I'm sure you guys will work out the right thing to do with the article. DGG is a good editor, and I'd trust his judgement. MastCell ^Talk 01:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be only making reverts over and over against multiple users. Please stop reverting and reply to the talk page which explains why the source is vein misused in an inconsistent way. ThorPorre (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page. Actually, I've commented several times, both at your user talkpage ([4], [5]) and at the article talkpage. I'm not sure what you expect; you're misrepresenting sources and ignoring all input from everyone else, and it's obvious you're pushing an agenda on the page in question. Do you expect me to drop everything and respond to each of your posts immediately, when you've made zero effort to actually think about what I've posted and respond to it seriously? And as far as reverting "against multiple users", it looks like I'm reverting you and two brand-new accounts/IPs who just happened to show up specifically to push your viewpoint on this low-profile article. I know I'm supposed to pretend that's a coincidence, but I'm tired and I don't really feel like the usual charade. How about this: you help me find some decent sources and reflect what they actually say, even if they don't agree 100% with the viewpoint you're here to advocate? MastCell ^Talk 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my muddled edit-conflict resolution. But more importantly, thanks for your kind and thoughtful comments. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jurtal. I was getting suspicious. That article has been frustrating... I feel like it vacillates between puff piece and hit piece. As for the two (one?) users in question, I have a feeling I know which office they both work in. Anyway, thank you for your help. Safehaven86 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. That's one of the more obvious cases of coordinating editing I've seen. I didn't mention the conflict-of-interest aspect (which, as you note, is also quite obvious). There would be no point, since Wikipedia does a really shitty job of dealing with conflicts of interest. Frankly, I'm surprised LysanderMises (talk · contribs) wasn't blocked as well; while one could accept the contention that there are separate people behind these accounts, they are clearly operated in a coordinated fashion to advance an agenda, and thus fall afoul of WP:MEAT. But whatever. I do appreciate your good work on the article, and I agree it's hard to find the right balance. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed a post of yours in which you described my alleged "hostility toward third-party reliable sources." That isn't accurate. I dearly love reliable third-party sources, but they are not a universal cure-all or magic bullet in every circumstance. In some circumstances, WP:SELFPUB tells us self-published sources can be used, particularly when we're working on an article about the authors of such sources. As I've said on the moderated discussion page, the most reliable source about an organization's agenda is the organization itself — any published statements of its agenda, goals, and principles. Other sources may supplement it, and reliable third-party sources may provide a different perspective, but they shouldn't be given more weight.

My purpose for visiting you is twofold. We've lost our moderator for the moderated discussion, SilkTork. He's going to be traveling for the next week with limited Internet access and has stepped down. Do you want the job? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your trust in asking me to moderate, but I don't think I'd be right for the job. For one thing, I don't think I have the patience. More importantly, as you've noted above, I already have a strongly held opinion on the way sourcing should be handled on the article, and that would make it difficult or impossible for me to serve as an impartial moderator. Good luck, in any case. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you'd be right for the job and you're being too modest. That Perrin source you've found is really quite good in general. Besides, the hard part is over, really. SilkTork took on the two toughest portions of the article first (the race/bigotry section and the agenda section), and it appears to me that the rest will be at least a little bit easier. This means a lot less argument, and less stress on everyone. If not you, then who? Any suggested candidates for a new moderator? Where can I find such a person? regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, do you remember the exhaustive, months-long conversations we had with Ryanspir (talk · contribs) at Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver? As it turns out, the individual operating that account has created a series of other accounts for various purposes, check out the SPI. The latest account, InLoveNoi, was created for the express purpose of attempting to take this DRN case I started regarding Morgellons. After all the accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry, the individual is arguing for an unblock at User_talk:InLoveNoi. This is just FYI. Thanks... Zad68 13:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It just goes to show how Wikipedia works: you can wage a year-long campaign to insert dangerous medical misinformation to the most widely viewed health resource on the Internet with complete impunity. But use a few alternate accounts, and the hammer drops instantaneously. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your userpage, probably one of the best I have ever seen. It is deeply inspiring. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 22:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad you enjoyed it. Happy editing. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

MastCell You blocked me for edit-warring.The source in question is the Skeptic's Dictionary. On July 4th I explained why 3 references were poorly sourced. There was no counter discussion except to assert that it was a reliable source. I asked Littleolive oil, who seems to be a page administrator on the Chopra page to weigh in. She's been preoccupied with a personal bereavement but on July 10, she responded:

I personally would not use Skeptic's dictionary in a BLP and probably not anywhere else. It is by no means mainstream unless mainstream to pseudoskeptical views. Carroll's tone identifies the source as less than academic. However if used SD should be used sparingly and with inline attribution so the reader knows the source is from a proclaimed skeptical source whose mission is to debunk. (olive (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)) Since Littleolive said she wouldn't use it anywhere and certainly not in a BLP page, I think the material in question does support my claim that poorly sourced material should be removed immediately without discussion. First of all it was discussed, it was deemed poorly sourced. Carroll is not a notable opinion or a notable source. I even supplied a Carroll quote where he says readers should not expect to find a balanced treatment of subjects in the book. One of the citations is so poor that it did not even exist in any version of the Skeptic's Dictionary. I noticed that citation was quietly removed yesterday without any acknowledgement of their error or their justification in keeping it in all these years. I also see that a section of the discussion on the talk page has recently been removed. I don't know what.

My repeated removal of the material yesterday was based upon talk page discussion and Littleolive oil's judgment and in support of BLP policy. Each time I took it off I referred to the discussion, the decision, and the BLP policy. I was then reported to you for edit warring. When you blocked me, did know there was a lengthy discussion on this on the talk page? Did you know Littleolive oil's decision?

I feel strongly that this page is not being edited according to BLP policy and the sensitivity that requires. As I move ahead on this issue I would appreciate your response, so I have a record of everything. Thank you,Vivekachudamani (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Olive is another editor and is not an admin. Secondly, Admins don't trump editors when it comes to content decisions. Thirdly as was already mentioned, there was a discussion at the talk page, where Olive suggested to go to RSN to confirm reliability, I did and overall the edits were agreed to be fine. You continued to revert over this. It was not legitimate to remove attributed material, and as WP:3RRNO warns, what counts as an exemption is vague, but it certainly isn't what you were removing. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I am still hoping to get clarification from you on this. If IRWolfie speaks for you here, just say so. Olive has already informed me that I was mistaken in assuming her views had more weight than they do. Did you check the usage of those 3 references to Skeptic's Dictionary and deem them reliable sources in those specific instances, or were your actions based on a generalized ruling of Skeptic's Dictionary as being a RS from the past? Also, please let me know if you were aware of my explanations and consensus building efforts on the talk page as well as the responses I received to that. I know everyone is a volunteer here, and I'm still new to this but I want to know how such decisions are made. If you have checked the the Chopra talk and history pages, what evidence did you find to indicate a possibility of following BLP policy on removing contentious material there that Alexbrn doesn't agree with? What would such a scenario look like, that is different than what I have already done? Thank you for your considered attention to this matter, Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello; I'm not ignoring you - I'll respond in detail as soon as I have the time to do so, probably this evening. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for looking into this, but it can wait now. I got to thinking after reading your collection of wiki insights, especially the Fourth Law of Stupidity-"under any circumstances, to deal with stupid people always turns out to be costly mistake" and that "Wikipedia lacks any mechanism to ensure that sane people triumph over pathological obsessives." I realized that I'm dreaming if I think this page will ever get better. I don't have the time, energy or the disposition to battle stupid people on a daily basis, and that is what it would take, even if the stupidest editors there were asked to cool it. I've contacted the Chopra Center and told them the situation with the page and advised Dr. Chopra to have the page taken down immediately. He called me back today and said he didn't even know removal was possible, then said, "Okay, have them take it down right away." I've sent an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org and I'm just waiting to hear back from them. Is there any other channel that is faster? Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that there are a couple of things that are important for you to understand here. I think Olive has already explained one of them, namely that no editor here really has final decision-making authority about a content issue. These kinds of things need to be resolved through discussion and consensus, not by edit-warring.

The second thing has to do with the meaning of our site policies on biographical material, or WP:BLP. This policy does not immunize high-profile people from any and all criticism. It does mandate that we present criticism fairly, proportionately, and accurately. The material from the Skeptic's Dictionary is not presented as fact. It's clearly presented as the opinion of Robert Todd Carroll. That opinion seems relevant and notable, as determined by editors here, and thus appears - clearly labeled and attributed as opinion - in our article.

There seems to be confusion about how we use the term "reliable source", as well. Deciding whether a source is "reliable" is not a binary yes/no decision, at least not by this site's criteria. The Skeptic's Dictionary is a reliable source for describing the opinions of its author (a notable skeptic) and, by extension, for describing the skeptical viewpoint of a number of topics. That doesn't mean that everything in the Skeptic's Dictionary must be "true", or that it's an academic source. It simply means that the opinion contained in the Skeptic's Dictionary is a reasonable component of a comprehensive encyclopedic overview of Chopra's work and reception.

In terms of your communication with the article subject, I'm not in a position to give you any specific answer, because I don't have any special role at the article. I blocked you because you were violating this site's editing policies, not because I endorse a specific version of the content. I will say that Wikipedia generally aspires to treat seriously any concern about defamatory or libelous material. If that's Chopra's concern, then the proper approach is to contact OTRS, which it sounds like you've already done. I will also be happy to remove any potentially defamatory material that you identify. On the other hand, if the issue is simply that the article includes a notable but critical viewpoint of its subject—properly attributed and presented as opinion rather than fact—then that's an issue that you'll need to take up on the article talk page. I hope that's helpful, and I apologize for the delay in responding to you. MastCell ^Talk 06:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things. My concern is not the inclusion of critical viewpoints. I would have thought that was clear in my discussion on the talk page.Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wondering if you have an opinion on the template being discussed here [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Trip_database] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

too late, not worth taking the time ... the problem has now been partially fixed, so you won't see the magnitude of the oversight that led to a bot recommending the use of primary sources on medical articles. My larger concern is that no one is minding the store anymore, because it is quite surprising that a situation of this magnitude was tested, discussed, and no one noticed. This may be the last straw for me in the new Wikipedia that relies more on bots than brains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not especially time-sensitive, so please feel free to respond only when you have the free time.

Also, I happened to be speaking to some high school underclassmen the other day who told me at some point during our conversation that they did not know what AOL and dial-up Internet were. NW (Talk) 02:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Read and responded... finally. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you tuned in at WT:MED? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not tuned in here at all very much, anymore. Is there something going on that I should be aware of? MastCell ^Talk 05:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

well ... after an exhausting week of dealing with Murphy's law on the real-life event, and determined to reduce my Wikipedia time to only the essential on my watchlist until I can return to full editing in September, I saw a lot going on at MEDRS, WT:MED and on my watchlist that couldn't be ignored; a few things are moving fast based on consensus among few, and with an absence of the more knowledgeable, experienced, long-time editors. Through no fault/negligence/malice of any of the participants there (everyone seems to be acting professionally and with the best of intentions), nonetheless discussions are advancing mostly with the participation of editors I wouldn't consider the core group of content builders who have been "in the trenches" for a long time and understand the real issues we face in day-to-day editing (which have nothing to do with most of what is being discussed there). Last night, I took a break from the real-life stuff and tried to do a better job of catching up (resentfully), and found more issues that really concern me (have a look at the June edits to Ketogenic diet, and the talk page discussion, and kudos on Colin for not mentioning this to me, but tell me how reviewing an inferior source and then having to remove editorializing from a Featured Article that received a professional external review was a good use of Colin's time? You know the kinds of issues on Wikipedia that really require most of our time, and that series at an FA took time that resulted in ... nothing significant. As I'm watching what is happening in medical editing right now, what I can't get out of my brain is, "First, do no harm". Then have a look at my last talk archive-- you will see these editors are generally helpful, but you might also see where we could be headed with two classes of editors-- US taxpayer paid vs. non-paid).

Considering how busy I am IRL right now, my posts on various matters have not been effective, are not contributing to optimal resolution, but every time I read WT:MED I am finding numerous misstatements that are being used to advance practices that will do absolutely nothing in the long run to help us deal with the real issues in medical articles. In several cases, they are taking time away from what we should be doing (when was the last time I got to use my free time to actually build some content? Answering misstatements about our policies and processes and practices to those who don't seem to have ample editing experience to even know same is frustrating right now because I am so busy IRL.) In short, I shouldn't be posting right now, but some discussions have moved along so fast and with so many inaccuracies, that it seems a very bad time to walk away.

And, after catching up last night, although everyone participating seems to be of high caliber and with the best of intentions, it appears that we are headed towards two classes of editors at WT:MED: 1) those of us who have dealt in the trenches with the long-term difficulties of editing and know what has worked and hasn't, and 2) paid editors who have pie-in-the-sky optimism about Wikipedia and aren't really aware of what practices even are, much less how they can be most helpful. I'd like to lay out my serious concerns, and that should probably be at WT:MED. I might attempt that, if I can get a break in my free time, but trying to participate there while resenting that this is taking away valuable free time right now has not been useful or effective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I may be missing something as I'm usually clueless as to the politics of this place. From what I can see, I'm very glad Hildabast edited Ketogenic diet and is editing our medical articles. Look at her contributions and then look at mine. I can no longer claim to be a "content builder" whereas Hildabast certainly is. Perhaps I will find time again to write more but you know I've been saying that for years. I start with good intentions but don't follow through. My main contributions now are pictures, and even they are few and far between. If some newbies have "pie-in-the-sky optimism" then hooray. We were all new once and made mistakes. Looking at Hildabast's blog, I see someone who knows far more about medical studies that I do. I've a lot of respect for MastCell here, and don't feel I should be mentioned in the same sentence frankly. I try my best, which often isn't good enough.

I was initially greatly excited at getting an updated Cochrane review on the Ketogenic diet. The previous one was very outdated and not worth including. But boy was I disappointed with it. I would be very interested to know what MastCell thinks of it (I can email it if you guys don't have access -- turns out there's one thing I have access to!). -- Colin°^Talk 08:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Colin, you kind of hit on what's bugging me ... we practically are unable to really build content any more because of keeping up with all of the other stuff! Yes, the silver lining is that it is good to have quality content people; it just seems it will take some time to bring them up to speed on the kinds of issues that affect articles more profoundly than things like open access icons, and I admit I was disappointed in the editorializing in the article (acknowledging we all make mistakes when new). And Cochrane reviews may be good in many or most areas of medicine, but they certainly are not superior in TS (I don't know about other neurological or psychiatric areas). And of course you belong in the same sentence with MastCell-- your mind is incisive, your work is thorough, your knowledge is admirable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Colin, your modesty is misplaced - you're an excellent and thoughtful editor, and highly valued, at least by me. I always look forward to reading your comments, even (especially) when we disagree. I'm not much of a content editor either, at least not anymore, for a lot of reasons. Mostly, I don't have the patience for it anymore. All it takes is one unreasonable and entrenched person to basically filibuster an article indefinitely. It takes incredible patience to work through Wikipedia's dispute-resolution process for content disputes. And I find that even when I successfully navigate that system, by the time I'm done I've lost all interest in and enthusiasm for the content in question. In general, I feel I can be more useful as an admin in setting the conditions for rational, sane discourse, but as a result I spend most of my time doing administrative stuff rather than content work. (Incidentally, being an admin on this site—and surviving as long as I have without being sanctioned for something or other—requires a level of defensiveness and self-protection that exceeds anything I've encountered in the world of "defensive" litigation pre-emption in medicine.)

Moreover, these days one can't even be sure that common sense will prevail at the ArbCom level; for example, Wikipedia's content on the proposed health benefits of Transcendental Meditation has long been controlled by a small group of apparently coordinated editors with apparent direct connections to the TM movement. The resulting content is biased, often misleading, and makes very dubious use of sources - not to mention that it presents a massive, undisclosed conflict of interest to the unsuspecting reader. ArbCom has not only ratified but has actively supported this state of affairs, which I think is totally unacceptable for medical content in a serious reference work. But I think I'm powerless to change it, which is depressing.

I'm sort of with Colin in that we need to temper our expectations for new editors. If someone is knowledgeable about medical matters, enthusiastic about the wiki model, and free of obvious psychopathology, then we should embrace and welcome that person. If they're reasonable and don't have a pre-existing axe to grind, then they'll gradually pick up the culture and norms here. And perhaps we can encourage them to (carefully) dip their toes into the more complex and controversial aspects of medical content here, since we desperately need more sane voices to deal with the never-ending flow of dogmatic, ill-informed quackery and tendentiousness that has burnt out many of our best medical editors.

Colin, I haven't seen the Cochrane review on the ketogenic diet; I'll try to take a look so I can give you some more informed thoughts. As to the other issues, I have to admit that I've limited my participation on Wikipedia substantially, so I may well be missing some vital context. If so, please let me know. Thanks for your posts - it's always good to hear from both of you. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

" ... and free of obvious psychopathology ... " ... and on that note, on to my next problem (the same ole same ole!) Yes, you're right as usual, MastCell ... it is almost sad that most of these enthusiastic new editors will all too quickly hit the Wiki Wall of Reality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

...which is why we all have our WP:CGTW Hymnal open to Psalm #2... Zad68 20:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Actually I'd be happy if some good new editors stayed editing uncontroversial yet important topics so they don't fall into the productivity-sink traps you mention. Far nicer to collaborate with good people to create a GA or FA than endlessly fight with mad people till one gets blocked. I share your disappointment over the whole TM thing. -- Colin°^Talk 07:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind that Will Beback overreached so far trying and failing to make the same sort of case about a TM editor that he broke all the rules of truth and fair play. Fladrif used to say the same sort of thing. And if I understood comment arising from the recent Pumpkin Sky RfAR, there have been concerns about other editors in the Beback camp. But the only editor putting this narrative around Wikipedia now is you. I am the editor most recently in discussion with you on TM and health, so I must assume that you're talking about me controlling content, "misleading" and "making dubious use of sources". But even if not me, all these repeated statements in different forums amount to personal attacks. Spicemix (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you're doing, and the implied threat that you're making. You mention Will Beback's name and misdeeds, and I drop any concerns I might have about inappropriate editing for fear of being associated with him or sharing his fate. I know that's been an effective tactic, but at some point I think you'll need to actually engage other editors' concerns rather than simply invoking Will's name as a debate-terminating cliche. Right now, a number of editors experienced in creating high-quality medical content on Wikipedia are concerned, disturbed, or appalled by the way medical content on TM is presented. I don't think you can make all of us disappear by lumping us together as the "Beback camp", although I understand why you're trying. More to the point, I raised a few of my specific concerns with TimidGuy above; he didn't respond, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the questions I raised. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If something is demonstrable true, it is not a personal attack. For me what is funny is that TM practitioners claim to emanate a paranormal calming effect on others, yet they are often noticeably very passive aggressive (frequently trying to intimidate others by misinterpreting Arbcom sanctions and then threatening other editors based on that) and find themselves in disagreement with so many other editors, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that it's fair to single out TM editors; frankly, Wikipedian culture is extremely passive-aggressive across the board. Our ham-handed version of "civility" basically incentivizes and encourages passive-aggressiveness. It doesn't seem specific to any one group. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Not making an "implied threat" – the point is that picture of the TM pages was drawn by editors who have been heavily sanctioned for malpractice, and we should keep that in mind when judging the accuracy of it.

And if only Beback were a cliche. But some are keeping his flame alive and want his ruthless vendettas and colossal POV back. In my view Wikipedia is a better place without all that. Spicemix (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. But wouldn't Wikipedia also be a better place if we found a way to manage the substantial, undisclosed conflicts of interest which influence our medical coverage of TM? If I concede that Will Beback was a horrible person and good-riddance-to-him, can we move away from the personality politics and talk about the underlying substantive issues? I wasn't being faux-polite above; I really would be interested in your response to some of the thoughts I articulated above to TimidGuy. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The evidence of the undisclosed conflicts of interest is already on wikipedia as well. For reasons unknown we are forbidden from joining the dots, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, for several months this year you have been in content dispute on the TM article, yet you are continuing to put around on Wikipedia a narrative that has no resemblance to ArbCom's conclusions on conduct there. There was no Arbcom substantiation of your point of view that there is systemic misuse of sources, though the Committee did specifically note that work had been done removing negative bias. You said the Committee behaved "with extreme prejudice". I think that must be a very personal view, which I respect your right to hold, but it's so damaging to any editor on the receiving end of it, that I suggest you give it less air. Spicemix (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you've asked me to stop talking about this subject several times now. I've heard you. Is there any chance that you're willing to set aside the personalities and politics for a moment and instead discuss the larger underlying issue - namely, how to deal with conflicts of interest in the TM subject area? Whenever I bring this up, I feel like you evade the question, which is frustrating. Again, I'd be interested in your take on the thoughts I articulated here. Do you see why a reasonable person might be concerned about these conflicts of interest and their impact (potential or actual) on our medical coverage? MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An impressive contribution to the COI discussion was made by Roger Davies ― here on this page. Wise and practical. Perhaps on reflection you found something to agree with there. And reassuring on the ArbCom finding too. It seems it was "evidence-based". Thanks for your interest, but I've nothing new to say, so that's my two cents' worth. Spicemix (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I still want to know what you think, though. Do you see nothing wrong with having our medical content about TM dominated by a group of accounts affiliated with the movement? Would you accept an analogous hypothetical situation where a group of accounts affiliated with Merck dominated our coverage of one of Merck's controversial drugs? Is it a problem that our content on the medical benefits of TM is written primarily by people with a strong personal (and possibly financial or professional) stake in "proving" its effectiveness? Do you think we have any obligation to disclose these sorts of conflicts of interest to the reader, or otherwise manage them proactively? Should the TM-affiliated accounts restrict their editing to article talkpages, as this site's best practices recommend, and leave the final editing of the article to independent, unaffiliated editors?

These are serious questions without easy answers. You're obviously a thoughtful person, and I know you've thought about them. That's why it's so disappointing to see you constantly evade anything that threatens to turn into a serious, substantive discussion by invoking Will Beback, and by implicitly threatening anyone who raises concerns about this matter. Given Wikipedia's focus on personality over substance, I can't say I blame you for employing that particular tactic, but it's still pretty cynical of you. In any case, if you're ever interested in a serious discussion and dialog about how we can manage the conflicts of interest in the TM topic area, my metaphorical door is always open. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I was researching the hepB vaccine and came across two Wikipedia articles that contradicted each other.

This one states that Dr. Maurice Hilleman created the first HepB vaccine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B_vaccine

This one states that Dr. Baruch Blumberg created the first HepB vaccine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Samuel_Blumberg

I am not a medical expert and I have no idea how to resolve this. I have seen your contributions in many medical articles so I thought I would run it by you. Thanks.71.108.130.246 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The source at Hep B is a blog, which gives a full accounting, but should nonetheless be replaced by a reliable source. [6] They each had a role; there are surely better sources that explain it, and Blumberg needs to be incorporated into the Hep B article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a tag I can put on the article to call in editors who may know enough about the subject to resolve the issue?71.108.129.117 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Templates. {{medref}} IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

71, a post to WT:MED will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion about this claim? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. I think it's silly, and it suggests a deep unfamiliarity with the scientific process. Then again, I've been on Wikipedia for about 7 years now, so I can't get excited anymore when yet another person here has some dogmatic, deeply held, completely wrong-headed idea about science or the scientific process. It's like background noise. There is, of course, no explicit difference between a "scientific" and a "medical" hypothesis. A hypothesis is a hypothesis, and it's only as good as its supporting evidence or its predictive power. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't suppose you would like to add your explanation to the attempted RFC on my talk discussion here? Or maybe I could direct the user in question here, for your enjoyment :) Vsmith (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I was wondering if you could take a look at a proposal I made to add a discussion of how to identify, and deal with, poor medical journals through MEDRS here. As it touches on several issues you have previously discussed (including predatory journals) I was thinking you might be able to help improve my suggestions or let me know if this is a bad idea. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the Breastfeeding article where editor PollutionAction has been reverted seven times in four days. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 User blocked for 1 week for continuing the edit war. I will escalate this to indefinite if problems persist after this. Keep me informed. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:PollutionAction is back to editing the Breastfeeding article to give "recognition to the well-documented negative side of breastfeeding". Gandydancer (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What's your view on how prospective treatments should be reported on wikipedia? I was looking at Tendinosis#On-going_research_into_new_treatments and it seems almost like a few interested persons have listed random trials there. My personal instinct would be to remove anything not also mentioned in a review article, but I would appreciate your advice. a13ean (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a tricky question. I'm not an absolutist about this kind of stuff, and I think that in an ideal world we could cautiously and circumspectly mention investigational treatments in our medical articles. The problem is that circumspection is a rare quality on Wikipedia. So the issue becomes, where do we draw the line? The best answer would be "use common sense", but that doesn't fly in this environment. So we've settled for more prescriptive and restrictive guidelines, which is probably the lesser of two evils since it keeps our medical articles from turning into a clinical-trials registry. I think that whatever you do will be reasonable, whether you choose to mention only those treatments covered in a review article, or only those with clinical efficacy data, or no investigational treatments at all.

Separately, I've never found the review-article bar to be very high. If someone is capable of publishing a study (which, again, is not a very high bar given some of the low-quality or frankly predatory medical journals out there), then they're more than capable of publishing a review article endorsing their preferred treatment. This happens all the time, to the extent that I sometimes think (cynically) that the only reason people agree to write reviews in the first place is to promote their own work. After all, writing a review article takes time and effort, and reviews are typically not accorded much weight in the appointment-and-promotion process in most academic medical centers. From a utilitarian/careerist standpoint, writing a narrative review article is a losing proposition - so why do people write them? And in many cases, narrative reviews are subject to significantly less scrutiny and peer review than primary studies, and authors are afforded much more leeway to be speculative (in fact, some journals, such as the Expert Opinion series, actually encourage wild speculation to be incorporated into reviews, albeit in a section clearly marked as speculative opinion). But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested you be (temporarily) immortalized (yes, I know): [7]. Hi MastCell, I'm just slumming on WP for an hour. Hope all's well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - it's always good to hear from you. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For helping to clean up the mess at Marsha Blackburn. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Aspie Quiz, one source (dubious open access ??), added to neurodiversity ... Eubulides and I cleaned up that walled garden years ago, the problem stopped ... and I've not the time to start cleaning it again ... and I imagine an AfD is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Aspie Quiz"? What the...? The sole source provided at the article is by the author of the "Aspie Quiz" itself, Leif Ekblad, who also happens to be the self-identified owner of the account that created the article, User:Rdos. Number of independent reliable secondary sources provided: Zero. Going to do a quick search to see if there are any other sources, otherwise it needs to be AFD'd per lack of WP:42. Zad68 02:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

AFD'd... Zad68 02:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for starting that Zad ... my time is very limited thru August. I see the walled garden beginning to take hold again, starting at neurodiversity. Eubulides and I spent months cleaning it up several years ago ... it was a garden of marginally sourced, POV, UNDUE neurodiversity topics ... starting up again. I can do more on it in the fall, but not now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I can act on problem areas if pointed to them, maybe you can send me a list of articles to watchlist and associated topics that attracted problems. My email is enabled. Zad68 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No time to locate the list, Eubulides and I had an entire chart, it was huge ... I did email you an explanation of why I am so busy, though, and I SINCERELY appreciate all your help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Real Life takes precedence, of course. I'll try be as helpful as I can. Zad68 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... found our old chart, moved from my user space to Eubulides: User:Eubulides/sandbox/autism. That was the chart we used to approach cleanup of a walled garden of UNDUE, poorly sourced, original research, POV, advocacy, autism articles ... most of the issues created by two users. I don't think we got most cleaned up, but we worked on the most important. Also, I saw your note at the editor's talk page, and he has been advised many times over many years (see previous entries on his talk) ... even before my time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Avoid posting menacing 'warning' messages on my talk. Stop acting like a third party/admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't have admins like MastCell acting like admins! But anyway, the template on your userpage is a standard edit warring template, warning you about the consequences of your actions if you choose to continue edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nitrobutane: To be clear, I placed the notification about edit-warring in my capacity as an editor, not as an admin. The tone of the message may sound "menacing", but it's just our standard boilerplate warning about edit-warring, not something I cooked up specifically to threaten you. Looking at your history, it appears you've already been blocked once for edit-warring a couple of weeks ago, so you're obviously aware of the policy and my warning was superfluous. MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems they didn't heed the notice because they have since been blocked for continuing to edit war. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Like all sensible people I watch MastCell's page, that's what brought the user to my attention. They did indeed continue. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

What is happening to the page is crazy. I would somewhat understand this behavior if Zimmerman had been convicted, as an attempt to portray things as an miscarriage of justice. We spent a long long time hashing out a neutral consensus on this article, and then out of nowhere these guys are coming in and completely trashing it. I dont know most of them, but I expected more out of DF at least. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin is sickening. Seriously, what motivates human beings to dedicate so much of their discretionary free time to disparaging a dead teenager? I try not to read that talkpage, because it's depressing and infuriating to read the ignorant, borderline (and sometimes not-so-borderline) racist nonsense that's allowed to proliferate there. Maybe you've had some positive exposure to DreamFocus, but all I've seen is his participation on that talkpage, where he's out of control. I try not to look at the talkpage, because a lot of it makes me angry enough that I can't find any civil way to respond.

That said, I do want to take the time to tell you that I have enormous respect for you. I know we don't always agree on specifics, but I've always been impressed by your thoughtfulness and your willingness to consider others' viewpoints, as well as your commitment to fairness and your basic human decency. Those qualities stand out sharply in an environment like the Trayvon Martin talkpage. I commend you for sticking with it and trying to rein in others' excesses and build something positive there. You're a good editor and a good person. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

```Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you would take another look at the RfC discussion on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I proposed specific text for consideration on 16 Aug in the discussion thread that I hope you will comment on. Dezastru (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but every time I visit that page I'm sickened by the level of discourse that's permitted to flourish there. I'm going to stay away for my own sanity, because if I read it I'm likely to post something that I'll regret. Good luck, though. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 05:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, MastCell.

As the blocking admin, thought you should know that it looks like Rangoon11's still about. I've found several anon IPs that locate to the same region as previously and they edit the same articles. Also, one registered user sticks out as a prolific contributor to University College London. Some of the edits are a couple of months old, but one on the list has been used this week. Anyway, the accounts seem to be used for just one session on a dynamic IP, so I wonder is it even worth posting the details at SPI? Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday <sup>talk</sup> 04:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I remember Rangoon11 specifically... I've been here so long that I've forgotten more than I remember. I guess it depends on how much trouble the IPs are causing. If there's a specific article they're targeting, let me know and I can look into semi-protecting it. Putting together an SPI report is a lot of work, so it's up to you whether you think that work is worth it. I'm sorry I can't be more encouraging, but I'll look at any IP or article you'd like if it will help. Cheers. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 05:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! In May this year, Rangoon11 was caught socking at the BP article where they had been particularly active. Anyway, at first glance the possible 'sock' edits are minor and uncontroversial, though I have a suspicion that since the block they've used many various IP accounts over a large number articles. I'll just try to keep an eye on the situation for now. -- Hillbillyholiday <sup>talk</sup> 06:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that you may have seen PMID 23162860. I'm curious what you think about the broader literature. I feel like I ought to be more diligent in taking my daily multivitamin but...eh, I'm lazy. NW (Talk) 04:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which... LeadSongDog come howl! 12:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I emailed Dr. Bjelakovic, author of the Cochrane Review you highlighted. He gave me the Cochrane review. If you want, I can provide a pdf of it, so that you can verify what I am saying. I can also provide you a pdf of the email exchange if you desire. Using the word search in my pdf reader I found that there are several inconsistencies that he did not address. I noted them in a very polite manner, he responded by giving me the review and noting that responses to questions were in the Feedback section (pages 273 to 289), but when I responded that there was no commentary on the items I brought up to him (which were published before the review), he had no reply:

This one is materially important to his review as it directly addresses it, and the latest version does not have commentary on it - it controverts his conclusions: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/2/9/929

This meta-analysis, looking at trials on vitamin E and reexaining the relationship between supplemental vitamin E and all-cause mortality, nullifies his conclusions on Vitamin E - the latest Cochrane review does not have commentary on it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21235492

Aside from that, this review shows why we need to consider much of the popular anti-vitamin sentiment with skepticism: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11

And toxicity scares are inconsistent with American Association of Poison Control Centers data, which show that for vitamins, there are zero verifiable deaths for which vitamins were directly responsible (per their relative contribution to fatality rating scale) - I can provide you with the full list of citations if you desire. Compare that fact to the following: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187436

Hello Mastcell,

Here is the previous comment without the hidden url (only placed there because it was to a book that provided a compilation of a series of studies on high dose vitamin C):

in the talk page for Vitamin C Megadosage, there is the statement by you that "Somewhere between 99% (charitably) or 100% (more accurately) of dietary supplements have no known beneficial effect on human health."

The Life Extension Foundation compiled a very extensive listing of studies showing the medical benefit of optimum nutrition (above RDA) supplementation for practically every nutrient advocated by the people promoting nutritional approaches to medicine, in response to this view, which is reflected in much of the policy of the codex alimentarius commission: http://www.lef.org/abstracts/codex/index.htm

Are you open to reviewing this, and revising your views accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.184.243 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the "source" you've linked to with its liberal use of scare quotes doesn't inspire confidence in its reliability as an impartial compilation of data. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a compilation of data meant to make a case, but it is a compilation controverting the statement of Mastcell that I highlighted. In light of it, comparing that to popular anti-supplement sentiment, I don't think the commentary provided by the source is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.184.243 (talk)

So someone cherry-picked a bunch of studies supporting their pre-existing beliefs about vitamins and disregarded any evidence which contradicts those beliefs? I think this sort of thing explains why most sensible people don't regard the Life Extension Foundation as a credible source of medical information.

I'm open to having my mind changed, but not by a source which shows such cynical contempt for its readers' intelligence. I think these sorts of laundry lists of studies are designed to impress people who are naive about how science actually works, but who are easily impressed by sciency trappings. You're implying that I need to think critically about my views on dietary supplements, but 10 seconds of critical thought should lead you to see the weakness of the LEF laundry list.

To their credit (I suppose), the LEF at least has the decency to note: "The Life Extension Foundation does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content or guidelines" on their website. If they don't believe their own propaganda, why do you? MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 05:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant nothing harsh with what I said. I merely noted that their list of studies controvert your statement - e.g. - they ARE studies that show medical benefit. I also don't see them cherry picking to the extent you presume - e.g. - in the niacin section they include a study showing no efficacy for schizophrenia, showing that their database is comprehensive- this study was important in the dismissing of orthomolecular psychiatry: http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=490850

It is interesting to note, however, that after the APA task force statement on orthomolecular psychiatry was made, the author of that study reevaluated his findings reservedly, but favorably with respect to orthomolecular psychiatry: http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=491246

The point is that inclusion of such information invalidates the claim that the compilers are acting in the manner you assert.

I suggest spending a day searching through that collection. You might find enough to modify your statement by at least a few percentage points.

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Hagelin and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have moved the venue as directed by the arbitrators to WP:AE. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)