User talk:MastCell

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Process

Hi MastCell. I responded a bit impulsively today in the heat of the moment in the thread that alleges misrepresentation of sources. I sort of wish now that I'd held off, since I really appreciate your suggestion that we get back to the process we started. I think that's a good suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. But since you're here, I want to ask you something. Our content on the purported health benefits of Transcendental Meditation is heavily influenced by editors affiliated with the TM movement. Do you think that raises questions about bias (either conscious or unconscious) in our coverage? I think the best practice (one that is recommended, but not demanded, by WP:COI) would be for editors with close connections to the movement to participate in talkpage discussion, but for independent, unaffiliated editors to manage the actual editing of article content.

I'm not a big fan of analogies, but let's say that our coverage of an antihypertensive drug from Merck were dominated by a small group of single-purpose accounts closely affiliated with Merck. That situation would rightly raise concerns about our ability to present accurate and unbiased medical information. I see a similar problem on the TM articles, at least as far as they intersect with medical claims. Do you?

Finally, I'm sort of disappointed in the lack of restraint shown by TM-affiliated editors. Frankly, there are a number of Wikipedia articles, both medical and biographical, which I avoid because I want to manage any potential conflicts of interest on my part. These are areas where I believe I could undoubtedly improve our coverage, but I recognize that my connections (which are not financial, but rather personal or professional) would potentially bias me. So I don't edit those articles, as a simple but healthy form of self-restraint. I sort of wish that some level of introspection would take place here so that people wouldn't need to beat the drum confrontationally about it. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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)Template:Z48

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)