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)

For administrative bravery

File:Haig-award.png		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar & the General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor
		These barnstars are presented to MastCell for courage and clear thinking in the face of obstinacy. -- Fyslee / talk 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Koop

I wanted to alert you that I have now responded to you regarding Surgeon General Koop, in case you are not watching the page any longer. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting the issue with me. However, I believe that you have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said today.[1][2] I never said once that Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, or Washington Monthly are incorrect. I simply said that a quote from the hearing transcript will provide MORE info than is provided in those publications. I still believe that. While your quote from Science magazine is interesting, it costs money to access that article, and furthermore the brief quote from the hearing provides interesting and useful info. Page 14 of the congressional report cited by Science magazine itself quotes other sources.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue can be crystallized very simply. We should rely on what reliable secondary sources have said about a subject as the basis for our articles here, rather than editorially selecting specific passages from primary sources which provide "MORE" info. Of course, it would provide "MORE info" to quote the entire transcript - that's not a justification in and of itself, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and furthermore the selection of quotes from a 340-page transcript is itself an editorial judgement. When that editorial judgement supercedes the context provided by reliable secondary sources, then we have original research and synthesis. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines specifically allow use of primary sources if it is done properly, and that was the case here. I have seen no guideline and no sensible reason why a Wikipedia editor may not quote a brief answer to a congressman's question, if that answer is already referenced in reliable secondary sources. The issue here was how Surgeon General Koop used the word "minuscule." Focusing on the answer where he used that word is not original research, IMHO, and doing so confines the Wikipedia editor to a minuscule part of the hearing transcript.

So what's the next step? Are you going to still try to ban me from the abortion article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I continue to think that your approach to these articles generates much more heat than light. If the issue was simply to include the "overwhelming" context, then we could have saved about 80kb of bickering had it been approached with something remotely resembling good faith (rather than this). I'm more than happy to review available sources, and I'm not going to exclude something that I find adequately referenced on some sort of ideological grounds - after all, I could have just neglected to mention or selectively quoted the Science piece, which I was re-reading this morning, rather than bringing it up. Given the history here and the ongoing issues, I continue to think that Wikipedia would be better served without your participation on those talk pages. I'm hardly the final word on the subject, but that's my opinion. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll leave it at that then, and see what happens. I still think that the hearing quote would be better than your Science quote, and certainly the former could have been included pending the latter. And FYI, another editor involved here (IAA) is perhaps the most aggressive POV-pusher I've ever encountered, and Severa can attest to that, despite your recent complaint to ArbCom that Severa's departure was my fault.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Severa's departure was entirely "your fault"; the corrosive atmosphere at those articles wore her down, and IAA was undoubtedly part of that atmosphere. I'm amazed that anyone can hang around those articles for long with what goes on there. I do think it is accurate to say that you played a role in driving her off Wikipedia, which was my actual statement, though I don't want to put words in her mouth. That's just my take on what I see on-wiki. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you admins could arrange a revolving duty. It seems a shame to leave those articles (especially the fetus article) to the wolves, regardless of whether you think I'm one of those wolves.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

← Articles on these kind of highly controversial subjects, where everyone feels strongly but no view is demonstrably "right" or "wrong", are always a problem. The Israeli-Palestinian articles are even worse in that regard. The problem is that admins are also editors, so they tend to have opinions on the content. Also, it's an unpaid position, so few people are willing to spend a lot of time sorting through vitriol and getting dragged in themselves in order to try and sort these things out. I try to avoid editing/adminning on abortion-related articles for that reason - my interest is pretty much restricted to the overlap between the abortion debate and science, which is where something like abortion and mental health comes in. If you have a suggestion on how these kinds of articles could be better maintained, and how the atmosphere could be improved, then I think the community in general would be interested in hearing it. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you tell me what Wikipedia forum would be best, I'll consider doing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Strider12 RFC

I did say that "The evidence section is good, better than many RFCs I have seen. The structure of the section is good - it lists particular policies and diffs". Of all the current RFCs yours might have the best set of policies/guidelines and diffs - but it could be better.

• You provided no diffs for your assertion "Continuously reinserts the same disputed material, often 2-3 times a day".
• You provided but a single diff for "Continuously denigrates the New York Times and PBS" - one diff doesn't show "continuously".

Still, I wish that every RFC provided as many diffs as you did.

After all the diffs you showed in the evidence of behavior section it was all the more surprising that you provided so few diffs in the evidence of trying to resolve the dispute section. I'm not a masochist; I don't want to wade through those long talk pages, but I would have glanced at half a dozen diffs.

Strider12 is a relatively new editor and she waded into a naturally contentious topic. It's not a bit surprising that she would make mistakes. But from the evidence that you provided - particularly from the dates of the diffs - she has improved since you tried to resolve the dispute. And you are to be commended for trying to resolve it through your lengthy comments of about 21 January. I said that your comments were "good evidence of trying to resolve the dispute." Since that date, looking at the evidence you provided, I saw considerable improvement in that there was no evidence of problems with the several policies I cited.

I do believe that if we warned users more frequently and explained to them specifically what they did wrong - and followed up with progressively longer blocks - that we would see less bad behavior. And I have seen many cases where editors did not understand the specifics of the 3RR policy - and they never received a good explanation before they were blocked. So, yes, I do think it is worth taking the time to warn users with a clear explanation as to what they did wrong.

If you want, I will put her on my list of users whose contributions I check regularly. (It's a list of people I have caught vandalizing.) And I'll put her two articles on my watchlist. I will try to explain to her the details of 3RR, V, and RS. And I will warn her if she comes close to 3RR - to the extent that I might be around near the same times she is editing. As an uninvolved and NPOV editor I might have better results than you or some other editors. Sbowers3 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be appreciated - any outside input is helpful. I think the frustrating thing is that there was a significant effort to politely guide Strider12 in the right direction - I've seen newish accounts blocked as incorrigibly disruptive for doing far less than she did in her first month or so. This wasn't just on my part, but on the part of other admins and even User:The Evil Spartan, an editor whose viewpoint on the issue at hand is more in line with Strider12's. WP:BITE is, ultimately, a two-way street - that is, as experienced editors it's our responsibility to try to guide newbies rather than pounce on them, but at the same time new editors need to make at least some effort to meet us halfway and be receptive to feedback and guidance instead of meeting it with wikilawyering.

I agree that WP:3RR is confusing. I thought I had specifically made clear in one of my warnings that any revert anywhere counted towards it, but I can't find the diff so maybe I'm mistaken. In any case, when an editor comes to my talk page to warn me about 3RR, I assume that they've read the policy, or at least the first paragraph where this is specified. If they haven't, then they shouldn't be handing out warnings.

I filed the RfC specifically because I've come to the conclusion that further warnings, feedback, guidance, etc to Strider12 will have no effect. She's had feedback from hostile, neutral, and even friendly editors which has had little effect on her editing tactics; she's consistently wikilawyered every single policy issue that's come up, and so far as I know never admitted fault, even in the case of clear violations like the canvassing and 3RR. I seriously doubt she will respond to anything less - in fact, given the excuses being made for her at the RfC, I doubt even that will change anything.

The canvassing is still an issue, as demonstrated by canvassing people to the RfC who are specifically known to be hostile to me. The constant bad-faith accusations of "purging", "disruption", etc have never stopped - if anything, they've intensified slightly. The central issue, to my mind, is that it's far too easy for a tendentious single-purpose agenda account to stall an article indefinitely. That's what's happening here. The article is uneditable. That is not completely Strider12's fault, but she is most culpable in my opinion. It's simply not possible to make progress, and that needs to change.

I'm not out to propagandize the article(s) in question - I think they both have a long way to go to be useful, accurate, and neutral. But it's been 4 months of circular arguments and constant accusations of bad faith, "purging", being Planned Parenthood interns, "disruption" (based on a horribly wikilawyered interpretation of an ArbCom finding), etc, and there is no end or improvement in sight. The outside editors who've been brave enough to comment have largely been driven off or left as a result of the tone of talk page discussions. There is a good article there waiting to get out, but I've come to the conclusion that it's never going to improve while Strider12 is there. And I don't say that lightly - like I said, it's been 4 months of trying to resolve this issue through discussion, warnings, reports, etc. I'm open to suggestions on how to deal with it, but I just don't see more warnings as being effective - to me, the issue is that Strider12's approach to Wikipedia is fundamentally agenda-driven and incompatible with basic principles like WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CONSENSUS, and her approach has become more rather than less entrenched with the passage of time. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrino theory and WP:COIN#User:TStolper1W

Hello MastCell. Ronnotel opened the above thread at the COI Noticeboard on 22 February, and you joined the discussion, mentioning you were considering extending Stolper's ban to Hydrino theory. So far no-one has supported the continuation of Stolper's editing of that article (rather than the Talk page). Stolper himself has not responded to my proposal that he moderate his editing, which I think means 'No.' Can you offer guidance as to whether our thread should be closed, or if there's any particular point that needs discussing further? EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at the COIN thread. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up. Can you finish off the expanded ban (if that's what you're planning to do) by editing User_talk:TStolper1W#Notice? In this edit, Stolper has undone an article change by one of our COI patrollers, claiming he is not banned from the article, citing your previous ruling. So he is clearly tracking the letter of the instructions rather than their spirit. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In the notice of decision dated 8 March 2008 that you posted to my talk page, you wrote: “if you would like to dispute my action here, you may raise it at the admin's noticeboard for wider feedback - I ask only that you notify me if you intend to do so with a brief note on my talk page.” Agreed. Give me a couple of weeks to think about this, and to see how much advantage Mills’ opponents, who are also mine, take of the new situation, which does tilt the playing field in their favor. TStolper1W (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just a brief note to let you know that I will shortly be resuming my editing of the Hydrino theory article. TStolper1W (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair

Not having read the Bachelder book: do you mean literally dug up and resurrected? The word literally is often misused nowadays, and somebody just removed it from the Sinclair article. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

??? The only edit I can remember making to Upton Sinclair is this one, which consisted of adding a {{reflist}}. I seriously doubt that Sinclair "literally" dug up and resurrected anyone, as apparently do you :) Am I missing something? Did I suggest somewhere that he wielded the power of necromancy? :) MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Abbas_re_Holocaust

surely the remarks by User:ForeverFreeSpeech in this talk section are unacceptable? He is calling people racist and members of the KKK. Given that Israel palestine policies are under extra sanctions, I believe some sort of restriction is in order? regards Suicup (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I had just given User:ForeverFreeSpeech a warning when I noticed that you, User:MastCell, had already given him one regarding his editing on Council on American-Islamic Relations. Maybe it's time for a shot across the bow?

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.03.2008 07:09

The user's been blocked by Jersyko, and I don't disagree with it, but I don't think taking "shots across the bow" in the sense of making attacks upon the user is going to help the situation much given that the user's already had troubles being bitten. He's not the only one being incivil in that talk page either, Nishidani and Eleland are plenty combative and make a few personal attacks themselves.

Now, if your goal is to drive someone off wikipedia, taking "shots across the bow" is a great way to WP:BITE someone. M1rth (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, blocks are preventive, not punitive. An editor who uses numerous inappropriate edit summaries, is warned in no uncertain terms, and continues with summaries like these: [3], [4], [5] warrants a preventive block. I don't like to characterize it as a "shot across the bow", or with any other aggressive or military metaphors, but ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) is extremely close to an indefinite block unless there's a major change in his/her behavior. I agree that there are other problem editors on the topic - I warned Kahmed (talk · contribs) as well, as this user was edit-warring. If you have diffs of personal attacks by other editors you'd like me to look at, I'd be happy to, or you could take them to the Arbitration enforcement board. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kahmed sockpuppetting?

See this diff and associated SSP log: [6].

I strongly suspect the IP is actually Kahmed trying to use his IP to avoid 3RR, and using the block on ForeverFreeSpeech as an excuse to edit war. M1rth (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's quite suspicious. On the other hand, multiple editors are reverting FFS' edits, not just Kahmed, so I don't think it's open-and-shut. I'd suggest taking it to WP:RFCU as possible abuse of multiple accounts/IP's to violate WP:3RR - that would be much more conclusive. MastCell ^Talk 05:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty confirmed to me without needing a RFCU. Kahmed appeared about the time the IP did, and if you check both the IP contribs and Kahmed's contribs, you see an amazingly similar pattern - the IP's been systematically hunting down things it dislikes seeing mentioned about CAIR, for example, this diff too. It appears to only break out the Kahmed login when trying to hide the number of times it reverts. I've caught it messing up once (diff1,diff2). M1rth (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I must have missed those last two diffs earlier, but they are conclusive. Given that, there's no need for a checkuser. I'll block the primary account for edit-warring and violating 3RR, and the IP as well. If IP socks continue to be a problem, we can consider semi-protecting the page temporarily. MastCell ^Talk 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

re "Things I've learned on Wikipedia"

Perfect! You have captured the current environment for posterity! •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy AGAIN

I know you're an uninvolved admin, so maybe you can stop a SPA editor from causing much more trouble. See this. thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears he's only technically reverted 3 times (the initial edit, while sweeping and against consensus, was not a revert in the technical sense of undoing a recently preceding edit). Ordinarily I'd go with the spirit rather than letter, but this is nominally a new user so WP:BITE comes into play. If he reverts again, I'll block him. In the interim, I've left a note informing him of the article probation on homeopathy; if the disruptive pattern continues, then I think 0RR/1RR might be the best approach. I'll keep an eye out; feel free to let me know if there are continued problems. By the way, does this new editor remind you of anyone? This is a highly atypical "first edit", so I was wondering if it matched any familiar patterns. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking into it, since the first edit shows way too much expertise, up to and including how to set up references (which took me months to learn properly). I know it's a sock, just don't know who yet. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Davkal? It seems like his style, though I must admit holding a grudge because he abused a holy icon in an impure manner. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly... you could ask for a checkuser - it's probably time to screen for Davkal's latest bunch of sleeper socks anyway. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tried to do a RFCU but I don't understand how the hell to do an updated request on someone who's already had an RFCU done. This is the second time I've attempted such a thing and the second time that I've screwed it up completely, to the point that it doesn't even show up at all as a pending request. Someone smarter than me can take it from here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - you just need to put the new request at the very top of the Case page (above all the archived crap) and then transclude it as you did. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go sit crosslegged in the desert and beat myself over the head with a scrap of plywood. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now now... no need to make a test case out of yourself. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors complaints against admins

MastCell, I respect your jurisprudence and at times the complaints against admins are far fatched by desgrunted users for what ever intaraction they have had with an admin pushing their POV a bit too strong, but some greviances have merit and need to be respected and addressed. An admin hold sysop tools and enforsment capability so that may seem threatening on its own. But admins are given those tools by the community in trust and they are upheld to higher standards than regular users. When an admin continuesly targets a user and keeps pushing the same message without trying to establish consensus is abusive. We are not hear to take sides but we need to address all sides. One admin does not deside an outcome but the community desides what needs to be done. If they have a complaint against a user they should lunch it and step back and let the community do its work, not canvas for their POV. I hope my conserns could be addressed and the regular editors being they are established editors or anon would feel more comfortable editing Wikipedia. They do not need The Hammer of Justice hanging over their head. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in general terms. Is this in reference to a specific comment or action of mine? MastCell ^Talk 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for specifics. No one is perfect and we try to do the best to promote NPOV and uphold Wikipedia:WikiCommonSense Igor Berger (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not perfect. It would probably be helpful, in the interest of introspection and self-improvement, to know what specific action of mine led you to bring this up, but if you'd rather leave it as a general comment that's fine. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not your actions I am conserned with, but other people around you. You may need to show your wisdom onto both sides. Igor Berger (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. MastCell ^Talk 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I think we should write an essay on those..:) Wikipedia conspiracies Igor Berger (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Life extension

Hi, I am Attila Csordas, mitochondrial and stem cell scientist and life extension supporter. My blog Pimm - Partial Immortalization is about stem cells and mitochondria, regenerative medicine, biotechnology, indefinite life extension, science hacks and bioDIY. It has been linked for a long time as an external link in the Life extension Wikipedia entry, but yesterday I realized that it is not there anymore so I put it back. I would like to ask why did you delete it again? I think the content of Pimm is heavily related to current life extension technologies, ideas and persons through the concept of systemic regenerative medicine which was currently highlighted in the Economist, for instance. I suggest scanning through the posts tagged with life extension and then make a decision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.57.224 (talk • contribs)

Chiropractic problems

You're listed in Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation #Administrators as someone to contact for assistance about problems with Chiropractic, which as you no doubt know is a controversial article, with chiropractic partisans and critics often disagreeing.

I've recently observed problems with EBDCM, an editor there who strongly defends chiropractic, is listed at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation #Notifications as being notified of the article probation for Chiropractic, and was part of a revert war that got the page protected today. I didn't frequent Chiropractic until recently, but when I joined I noticed that EBDCM was uncivil and indulged in personal attacks on Talk:Chiropractic at a high rate.

I have tried to ignore the behavior, but the disruption it causes is extraordinary in my experience. Plus, one other strange thing happened: EBDCM suggested that I add what I consider questionable material to a medical article as a sign of "good faith collaboration" in Chiropractic. This suggestion was made here:

"http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm Now, you said above that you've made mistakes and I would opine that you would be making a big one by not reviewing and including this in the most appropriate article, you know, as a sign of NPOV editing and a sign of good faith." [7]

and repeated here:

"So, I'll ask Eubulides again: as a sign of good faith collaboration, will you include the references I provided you and address the safety issue (or lack thereof) in the medicine article?" [8]

I am not accustomed to being asked to edit other articles in a questionable way "as a sign of good faith".

Most of EBDCM's incivility is used in strong language directed at other people's comments or edits, but a good deal of it is clearly personal attacks. Here are some samples (all taken from the last three days).

• "Liar." [9]

• "Note how MDs and medical students are not well prepared for the specialization of musculoskeletal medicine. This, in part, explains your difficulty with your edits here; fish out of water perhaps?" [10]

• "Eubulides paternalistic and arrogant and condecending tone is not winning him any favours and further damages his credibility, which, IMO, is shot now." [11]

• "I feel that Dr. Eubulides does not have a firm grasp on this subtlety which is nicely illustrated in Anon's point." [12]

• "I would figure that our self declared "expert" in research and writing med articles (which this is not) would know better.... you are lying when you suggest this" [13]

• "You don't seem to get this, Dr. Eubulides. Your intent here is questionable, and a majority of editors disagree with you and yet you always, always, always push, push, push." [14]

• "Also, again, you are being intellectually dishonest and referring to google scholar as some kind of barometer as to what is acceptable." [15]

• "You are so intellectually dishonest I'm having I really don't know if I can work with you if you do not start to improve your understanding of the issues." [16]

• "You know absolutely NOTHING about chiropractic which is why your edits suck. You lack insight and sensitivity to this topic and article, because you're an MD and do not understand chiropractic culture, chiropractic philosophy, chiropractic styles of practice and chiropractic research." [17]

• "It's because you don't know jack about the art and science of manipulation and you have to listen to quack guru." [18]

• "Eubulides parades around here with his medical hat lecturing evidence-based DCs about the profession through his warped lens" [19]

What's the best way to proceed? Eubulides (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. That does not look good. Give me a bit of time to look into it - work's pretty heavy today but I promise to do so. If you'd like a faster response I'd be fine with you also contacting the other admins listed on the probation page - that is, I wouldn't consider it admin-shopping - but I promise to look into this today when I have enough time to give it the attention it needs. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush. But if you'd rather have some admin look at it because you're busy, that's fine; please just suggest one or forward the info to them. Eubulides (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to respond. The "attacks" I made were made at the edits in question and not necessarily yourself, nonetheless, other editors have agreed with me that in absence of consensus, in fact, in absence of much support for your points, there was a lack of compromise in your edits and you seemingly refuse to acknowledge important points made by other editors. Furthermore, by "teaming up" with Quack Guru it has shown, in my opinion, a lack of judgment which was characterized by a fear mongering tone of the safety section, which was agreed by myself, DigitalC and Levine2112.

Obviously I was not asking you to include the website per say, but rather the citations listed within that website that come from good journals, such as JAMA, for example. I also found it a double standard that while the medicine article does NOT have a safety section, you came to chiropractic, teamed up with quack guru and made the section an Ernst mouthpiece. This, IMO, was questionable and I asked you simply to apply the same standards as you are insisting on chiropractic safety. Also, many editors have considered your edit to be one of fear mongering which you have never addressed.

This is because since you have begun editing on chiropractic, you have generated much controversy with your style of editing including demands that chiropractic philosophy be completely rewritten and then you provided a draft which was woefully inadequate in content and then began debating with several experienced editors as to what consisted of chiropractic philosophy. After weeks of debating whether or not prevention was part of chiropractic philosophy I began to notice a trend in your editing style which tended to highly mostly negative information in language and tone that could easily be perceived as inflammatory. Hence, I asked you to please show the same determination and standards in editing medical articles (which, according to your history you have done extensively) but you had refused to engage in any meaningful conversation. This, IMO, was just one example of a double standard in editing which I found particularly galling.

After nearly a month of suggesting to you that some edits you were making were less than forthright, and misrepresenting the words of editors who opposed your edit, and then we you have blantantly suggested there was a consensus for your edit (when 4 editors were opposed as compared to 2 in favour, i.e. yourself and quack guru) the language escalated. But that was after several weeks of using mild language and continued inappropriate spins of facts or words from either the literature or words of other editors.

The papers referenced did in fact say that the average physician and medical student was inadequate in musculoskeletal medicine. It also suggests, in part, why you are having trouble in finding agreement with physical medicine practitioners who know their art and science better, including the finer details and salient points which I have alluded to many, many times in your edits.

After nearly a month of experience in editing with you, this is how myself and other editors (who do not want to be outed) feel. You constantly tell us and decide almost unilaterally what is a good source and what is not (anything that contradicts your view seems not to be “good enough” ) do not acknowledge some important concerns raised by other editors, have a predisposition for including controversial edits in the main article prior to achieving consensus (some of us work and cannot respond the same day, at times) amongst many other things that is listed in the talk history from early feb until now.

Again, anonymous had raised a point that myself, Levine and DigitalC made which may be a communication issue; however when 4 separate editors raise the same point through various conversations, it leads me to believe that indeed, there is not a grasp on the subtleties of language and tone being made. After several repeated “offenses” of the same problem with respect to your edits I feel that the above comment is more than justified.

Anyone who follows your entire history on the chiropractic talk page will see that instead of collaborating and achieving consensus you do not stop pushing your point through despite despite objections from majority of editors.

After all my experience with you on editing, especially after the philosophy debacle (an MD telling experienced editors (and a DC nonetheless) like Dematt (and others) what is and what is not chiropractic philosophy was not, IMO, a good first impression with many regular editors at chiropractic. Many of us have tried to explain to you the complexities of the issues involved, even from an insiders perspective, but you do not seem to comprehend what we are trying to communicate to you.

DigitalC agrees with me on this as well; citing google scholar as evidence that Ernst deserves 25-50% of text because it appears high on google scholar is not a valid way of approaching this.

After nearly 2 weeks of many editors mentioning that your and quack guru's safety (1,2,3) was highly suspect and your continued insistence to quote and devote large sections of Ernst which has been soundly rebutted by many physical medicine professionals in various journals AND with the recent WHO TaskForce on neck pain which soundly refutes Ernst's claims with a very comprehensive analysis of VBA and chiropractic care, I found your editing and wording more than disingenious, particularly when you chide us what studies are acceptable and which aren't.

Did you or did you not collaborate with quack guru on a safety article that he had written on his sandbox and then try to push a severe POV that was decidedly fear mongering to replace the current text which has a much more neutral tone, better language and writing style and appropriate references (before quack guru inserted 10+ out of nowhere)?

Your tone was construed as condecending and your edits, which seem to be influenced from the POV of a mainstream medical professional outside of manual/physical medicine who has the expertise, both in education and clinical experience regarding the relative risks, in particular of SMT. My comment was refering that your edits make the same "mistakes" of the most feverent critics despite the fact that there is stronger evidence to the contrary. EBDCM (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I am leaving on a fishing trip this weekend, I cannot respond to queries or concerns but will be happy to do so. Also, I am a bit leery of a potential conflict of interest of admin MastCell (MD) who has declared skepticism towards CAM taking on Eublides(MD) concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBDCM (talk • contribs)

I have blocked EBDCM for one week. If problems resume, please file a user conduct requests for comment. Thank you for your patience. The evidence presentation was well organized and convincing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FFS

Re: ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) - I'm not sure why you have it in for that user, but I've now found two distinct (and not even similar in area) spots where Jersyko went after FFS prior to blocking indefinitely. It looks like Jersyko's just taking out some personal frustration/vendetta and that's completely uncool. M1rth (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't "have it in for him" anymore than I have it in for any user whose contributions look like this. This is a collaborative project; people who are fundamentally unable or unwilling to make any concession to that fact don't do well here. Like I said, I think fresh eyes would be helpful, which is why I didn't answer the unblock request. You could consider posting the block for review on WP:AN or WP:AN/I as well if you feel you'd like more uninvolved input. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice guy, this M1rth. By the way, your user page looks wacky in Firefox, though is quite pleasant in IE. Just an FYI. · jersyko talk 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my... you're right, it looks like a dog's breakfast in Firefox. I wonder how I can fix that. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for commenting on my talk page. FWIW, I don't intend to revert again, although I can't help reading its use here as flame bait; knowing that it will backfire in the long run does not make it any less despicable. Avb 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I tend to ignore comments from clearly involved and possibly conflicted editors... trust but verify) Avb 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had similar problems with the RfC - it's generated a lot of useful feedback and a clear message that Guy's approach needs to change, but it's also passing its sell-by date and degenerating into a series of grudge-bearers trying to find the right stick to poke him with. For all the complaints about "context", that diff is an egregious example of contextomy. The user whom Guy called a "cunt" made what is literally the worst comment I've ever seen one person make towards another on Wikipedia. I remember, at the time, being substantially impressed with Guy's restraint. I wouldn't have been as moderate in his shoes. But at the the RfC, it's presented as "Exhibit 3F: Guy called someone a 'cunt'". It's edifying to see that in that particular situation, some people would rather support ParallelUni's right to be treated civilly than Guy's entirely human and relatively moderate response to shockingly inappropriate harassment. But people will either click on it and check out the context, or they've already got their minds made up - removing the diff won't help matters. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

I only watch this article to keep the obvious vandals away (which I might add is all YOUR fault, by getting me involved with Duesberg hypothesis). At any rate, Merechriolus (talk · contribs) is starting a large number of attacks me, you and Baegis (talk · contribs). Someone needs to get him or her under control. Did you remember to throw the socks into the laundry? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin J Walker

Thanks for the advice on contesting the deletion of the article on Martin J Walker. It would be helpful to have the deleted article discussion available as part of any review. Where is it? Sam Weller (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam; I've replied on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, I've started the process here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Singularity#Martin_Walker_deletion Sam Weller (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_12#Martin_Walker

Sam Weller (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Smell of Astroturf in the Morning...

FYI. This is from CSPI's weekly "Integrity in Science Watch" email: "Cheer to Andrew Martin of the New York Times for a story exposing that a new lobbying group called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology was organized and partly funded by Monsanto to lobby for state laws prohibiting labels on milk cartons declaring when it is free of synthetic bovine growth hormone. A Consumers Union survey showed 88 percent of Americans want that information on the milk containers." I don't think this is directly relevant to anything you or I are working on here at WP, but I thought you might find it interesting. Yilloslime (t) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary versus Secondary Sources

Since we are in disagreement as to whether the Fitzgerald Report is a primary or secondary source, I will accept your suggestion that we obtain a third opinion. To that end I have created a section on the Hoxsey talk page summarizing the disagreement so a third party can easily comprehend the question. When you have time, please add your reasons for characterizing the Report as a primary source in the space indicated, and I will do the same. After we have both had a chance to read each other's position and make any adjustments in response to each other, and we are both satisfied that each other's arguments are on topic, I will add the question to the third opinion page.

Note that I have included the complete long list of examples of primary sources. Since you and not I are the one arguing for the "primary source" position, I will not object if you wish to delete those examples that do not support your position. Jweiner (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Nicely done

Thanks! I really appreciate your comment. And I'm almost amazed at how quickly - ten minutes! - you noticed and responded. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. :) Sbowers3 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab, and med articles in general

Question for you: Some drug articles (notably natalizumab, at the moment) have summaries stating that they are effective for various off-label uses. I have some concern about this, from a medico-encyclopedic standpoint. I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on this specific issue, and on the issue of how to discuss off-label uses of drugs on Wikipedia in general. Thanks so much. Antelan ^talk 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I came to MastCell's page because he had come to mine yesterday, and wanted to point out that the most recent conversations about "standardizing safety warnings in pharma" was mis-guided, and for reasons I make clear on the N talk page. But I would remark here that the assertion that "articles (notably natalizumab, at the moment) have summaries stating that they are effective for various off-label uses" seems completely un-true, and also bizarre because there is a patient registry - unfortunately even the PPMS patients, for whom it would surely be their best chance, have zero opportunity to even try it (unles the doc just signs them as RRMS - does it happen?...I wonder)....io-io (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - apparently the FDA site is not the most up-to-date place to get info about FDA drug labels; who would have known? Natalizumab is approved for the treatment of Crohn's. However, I'm still interested in your approach to the issue of discussing off-label use in drug summaries (or drug articles in general, if you feel ambitious). Thanks, Antelan ^talk 01:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the FDA. The thing is, if we didn't cover off-label uses the encyclopedia would be pretty limited - for example, most or all of the medications used in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are off-label. Haloperidol has never been FDA-approved for intravenous administration, though the average psych ER uses gallons every week. My feeling is that we should cover drugs in the ways they're studied and used. We should definitely note FDA-approved indications, but we can certainly cover other uses so long as they're supported in the medical literature or by other reliable sources.

That does raise a fascinating question, though. Pharmaceutical companies are forbidden from promoting their medications for off-label uses - remember when Pfizer was busted to the tune of $430 million for promoting gabapentin for restless legs syndrome and so forth ([20])? So if a representative or employee of a pharmaceutical company promoted one of their medications for an off-label indication on Wikipedia, would that be illegal? I don't know the letter of the law, but it's an interesting question. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think the PhRMA question that you've raised is the $800 million dollar question (though I side with Marcia Angell in doubting that figure). Regards, Antelan ^talk 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes sense - $100 million to bring a new drug to market, and $700 million worth of logo-inscribed pens and Nerf balls. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman redux

Hi MastCell -- it may be a good idea to re-do the semiprotection of Dana Ullman (cf. our earlier discussion). Some similar repeats of sorta defensible yet borderline, game-y edits by IP's. The subject has a new book out, so he's attracting some attention; given the history of sock puppets and TOR proxies on that page, I would suggest extending the semi-protection for a good long while. I can comment further on the dynamic I perceive there if you like. regards, Jim Butler (t) 02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, more TOR nodes active. Given the sensitivity of the article and BLP issues, I've extended the semiprotection for another month. If there's any dynamic you think I should be aware of, feel free to email me. MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that Dana Ullman was a real person. I just thought she (apparently a he) was an annoying anti-science POV type. Little did I know that he was so notable!!!!! Could you warn me in the future? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi MastCell, Over the last few weeks I've been reading a great deal of material in Wikipedia. I doubt you need to hear this, but I just want to say how much I appreciate your posts, always speaking with a voice of calm sanity and irrefutable logic even in the midst of chaos. Again and again, when I come across a well-stated and insightful comment, I'll find your name attached to it. I'm not keen on the whole barnstar thing, and wouldn't know how to give you one even if I were, but just wanted to tell you that. Carry on, Woonpton (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - they're appreciated. If I could offer a word of advice, it's often quite pleasant to find an interesting but underdeveloped non-controversial article and work on it in peace and quiet - the constant bickering around here gets old pretty fast. I do intend to take my own advice one of these days :) Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Userfication or email request

Please restore a copy of Template:Canvassing to my userspace or email it to me. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done; the template is now at User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Canvassing, and the documentation at User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Canvassing/doc. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)