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)

No

No, No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Reasonable, level-headed voices are in short supply already. Yobol (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly why I feel like leaving. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And a reason why those of us trying to build a good encyclopedia need more around...Yobol (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't go. Edit less. Do more of something else instead. But don't go. Please. Colin°^Talk 08:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This can't happen-- there are so few left-- of the good people as well as good editors, the ones I'd want to have coffee or a drink with, that I care about beyond this place. It's gotten too bad in here for even the toughest, and certainly too bad for the wisest, kindest and brightest. Why are people letting this happen instead of fighting it? Why can't we find a way together to stop it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As one admin put it on ANI "open editing isn't for the faint of heart". I do think that in all likelihood the future of Wikipedia holds many Baseball Bugs. But I also think that people here often tend to have an overly idealistic view of the past. Just read this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Barf. But knowing most of that cast of characters, how is it that something that bad can look so good compared to the current level of discourse at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I misexpressed myself. I don't see much difference between that 2006 drama and AN[I] of past week. Or between the follow-up ArbCom to that 2006 bruhaha and some late 2011-12 ArbCom cases. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The bullying of underlying cabals and factions is the same-- but there's less peanut gallery (which makes it much easier to see the cronyism-- and THAT is one thing that is wrong now-- the factions are obscured by the high noise to signal, although it's clearly there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Find a nice quiet corner and build some articles (not even necessarily medical ones) away from the disputes and controversies. I'm sure without dealing with the POV pushers in a while will give you a fresh perspective on things. Yobol (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's always been my advice. Trim your watchlist too. Colin°^Talk 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. Don't be a victim of the prisoner's dilemma, when there's another option. If necessary, change the rules.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• All of that is excellent advice. But this time it's not so much a single conflict, or even a series of conflicts, that's depressing me. It's the overall direction of the site and my experience here. It's just not really fun anymore. You're correct, of course, that there have always been trolls, ignoramuses, and silly drama; there were no "good old days" in that regard. But what's changed is the number and nature of the positive interactions that made editing here enjoyable.

  One of the main rewards of editing here was getting to work with a bunch of smart, interesting, thoughtful people toward a shared set of goals. Most of those people are long gone now, or at a minimum irreversibly burnt-out. You guys are exceptions - you're all in the category of people I've really enjoyed working with, and you're still here. But I feel like this site has passed a tipping point. We've selected for cluelessness, obsessiveness, petty vindictiveness, and rigid rules-lawyering to the point where those qualities are endemic not only in the community, but also in a growing minority of the Arbitration Committee. It seems like the idea of creating a serious, respectable reference work is an increasingly uncommon motivation among active editors, nor does it seem particularly prevalent in reasoning at the admin/ArbCom level.

  I'm just really tired of this place. I'm tired of reading thousands of posts about incivility written by people who don't seem to grasp a basic truth obvious even to an intuitive 5-year-old: incivility springs from frustration. There's no interest in understanding why constructive editors routinely end up so frustrated that they snap (the answer is obvious to anyone who's edited in the trenches, but such experience is increasingly rare these days). Incivility is viewed as a personal failing, rather than a symptom of serious underlying systemic problems. So there's an obsessive interest in "enforcing" civility as an end unto itself, by penalizing individual acts of incivility with blocks. That's a superficial and counterproductive approach, yet everyone seems baffled that the more we do to "enforce" civility, the more toxic this site's atmosphere becomes. It's like the project has a bad fever; our answers are bloodletting and mercury-based laxatives, and no one can understand why they're not working. Most of the discussion revolves around whether and for how long to block for incivility, which is like watching medieval physicians argue about how many leeches to apply to a septic patient. If you start with the wrong tool, then it doesn't matter how you use it. It's not going to work.

  Given the competing personal and professional demands on my time, it's increasingly difficult for me to rationalize investing more of it on a project which appears to be gleefully accelerating toward a brick wall. On the other hand, I don't think I'm actually going to stop editing completely. I've been beating the drum about the accuracy of medical articles (as have you guys) because we all believe that this site has enormous potential, for good or ill, to inform people's health-related decisions. So even if I don't edit here out of enjoyment, it's still really hard to sit by and see poorly written or outright inaccurate medical material without trying to improve it. This is what brought me back (see my recent edits), because I really was planning to just fade away, Eubulides-style. Of course, I've been disillusioned and written "goodbye-cruel-Wikipedia" missives before, so there's a non-zero chance I'll just pick up again in the next month or two. I appreciate the kind words, though. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I suppose you can see Wikipedia as an example of coevolution. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "I'm tired of reading thousands of posts ..." Well don't read them. I fall into that trap too. It is a timesink. Yes there are problems. The "let's have students write WP for their homework" focus of WMF isn't working and good editors have left or are inactive. But it is still the most important source of medical information on the net. Colin°^Talk 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Speaking of which, I wholeheartedly agree with MastCell's idea from this edit summary, and I sympathize with those trying to maintain NPOV in that area (a still unsolved Arbitration case comes to mind), although I lack the skills to contribute to that effort. I can see why focus solely on that can lead to burnout though. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Colin, I agree that the right thing to do sanity-wise is to ignore most Wikipedia-namespace discussions. But there are two problems with that approach. First of all, if I ignore those discussions then I forfeit my voice in determining how ideas like civility and neutrality are applied, and (arguably) my right to complain when they are misapplied. Secondly, if I keep my head down and write content while others run the project into a brick wall, then on some level I'm going to feel like my time was wasted when the project collapses. (To be clear, I'm not sure how strongly I believe those two arguments, but they've at least occurred to me).

      But you're right - I've noticed that while I sense a clear decline in the number and quality of active editors and admins, I don't think there has been any decline in Wikipedia's prominence as a source of information. If anything, its popularity in that regard has continued to grow, and I find this site cited nearly daily by both consumers and providers of healthcare. So I agree with you - it's still the most important single source of medical information on the Web, and worth the effort on that basis. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Every day I create a new sockpuppet and add ridiculous crap to a medical article, in the hope that it will lure MastCell back to Wikipedia in order to correct it. Hint for tomorrow: did you know Hepatitis C is caused by a Vitamin S₁₂ deficiency? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, that reminds me of one of my favorite Wikipedia-in-a-nutshell moments. I pointed out to one of our resident AIDS-denialist editors that the (specious) arguments he was making about HIV/AIDS could also be applied to question the link between hepatitis C virus and hepatitis. Rather than leading him to reappraise his beliefs, though, my argument led him to the hepatitis C articles, where he laboriously made the case that HCV was also, like HIV, either non-existent or harmless. That's one thing I love about this site (in all seriousness): every day it shows me a new way in which reason can be deflected by the steely armor of ignorance. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Small world; that was me! --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, I absolutely understand every one of your frustrations. I used to have a good time here, now I just keep the articles I wrote from unraveling. I snap at people, where before I would have never done it. And I don't feel guilty at all about plunging into absurdity and incivility.

Here's a harrowing thought: no one here as any more moral authority than I do. Holy Christ, how frightening. I'm nothing but flaws and no one else is any better. When admins occasionally try to chide me for being short-tempered, I don't understand how they don't understand that they have no greater moral authority than I do.

The focus of my frustration is the absolute failure of people communicating concisely and clearly. Very few are apparently able to do it. Comments are filled with sarcasm, bitterness, hyperbole, emoticons (fucking hate those motherfucking emoticons =D--no seriously, I hate those motherfuckers ;P goddammit...), and so much figurative language that all people are responding to are the parts of comments that don't matter. And honestly, the world at large really sucks at being able to be honest with themselves and with each other.

Because I've also gone through some other stuff in real life, though, I see less of what goes on here as the cause of the changes in how I approach Wikipedia, and am more convinced that I had unrealistic expectations a couple years ago that this site should feed whatever reward I was getting from it. I should not expect other editors, even admins, FA regulars, et al, to back me up when I have a difficult time with other editors who have no idea what they're talking about. It was wrong of me to expect it, and I was disappointed because I expected something that I shouldn't have. I saw a minority of editors working toward a lofty goal and fancied that I was among them, that the goals we ostensibly were all working towards were ideal and that they should be applied to all editors. Or that the work I was doing was somehow awesome when it was really mediocre within a sea of banality. I had many misconceptions there. A couple years ago I was depressed about Wikipedia. I don't get depressed about it; it's just what it is. I shifted my expectations. I don't get disappointed anymore. But I don't invest any part of myself either. It's no big loss. I don't have the time to plunge into articles anymore. So...I know what you're going through. I don't know how much it's worth it for me to say "hang in there, kitten!" but...I see where you're coming from. And I'm sorry in a way I can't fix it for you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to write a long, thoughtful post about whether things really are worse, whether we're seeing the inevitable trajectory of a mature and -- yes -- successful project, the way that WMF has gone from remote and vaguely benevolent ("WMF? They run the servers or something, don't they?") to becoming actively harmful, and a bunch of other stuff. But screw it, you've heard most of it before, from people more eloquent than me. The conclusion I reached some months ago is the same as MastCell: this simply isn't a good use of my time. I still make the odd noticeboard comment or edit to an obscure article on a blues singer, but I have no connection to "the project." If the whole thing folded up tomorrow I would just shrug. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "actively harmful", are you talking about WP:POLA or something else? The new ToS maybe? It is certainly moving strongly in the direction of WP:YDOW. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm never leaving 'for good'. Early on I pledged to myself that I'd be part of this project for as long as I'm around. Of course, I don't do nearly as much as I'd like to, but I plan to be back in the thick of it someday. When I've looked at my past work, I've been happy to see that much of the content or clarifications that I've worked on remain, supported by solid references. I've missed a lot of drama lately, but I feel like the fundamental core of Wikipedia remains, in general, resistant to the latest scandal of the day. I tend to have the opposite view from that expressed here. I'm hopeful that the good guys will outlast the bad guys. The good guys are stronger and smarter, and they have more use for a reliable encyclopedia. Also, right now the tools (reference management and due diligence, discussion linking, diff collection for reviewing and disciplining editors) are not smooth enough for Wikipedia to be a really good use of my time, so I'm sort of planning to spend more time on improving that (and considering I'm not great at that stuff, it'll be a long project). Things will get better. II | (t - c) 04:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the other thing that's true about Wikipedia (and perhaps should be a MastCell law) is: drama passes, content remains. To some extent it also applies to editors, which are a transient commodity. It's true that at some point the active editor set might become unable to maintain Wikipedia properly, but given its licensing, there's always the option of locking everything down or forking an older snapshot to a different infrastructure. As for "things will get better", it depends from whose perspective; clearly some have mastered the current environment well enough [1], and they'll probably get better. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I heartily recommend just taking a break from the bastards grinding you down. I have written or substantially rewritten about an article per fortnight while I have been on hiatus, and it has been quite refreshing. AN/I is hilarious (in a laugh of cry kind of way) after giving myself permission to ignore the drama-mongers. Alternatively, go rouge. Write a script to find the most prolific contributors to the nonsense boards over the last few weeks, and summarily ban them until they can interact with other editors as adults. The project is important, and I at least miss your voice of reason. Love and smooches, 66.87.4.208 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A Place of Refuge

I guess your talk page has been on my watchlist for quite a while. I happened to go from my watchlist to here, and saw others urging you to hang around. I've liked your contributions to Wikipedia, but I agree that the atmosphere here has been very off-putting to thoughtful people, who are indeed in short supply on Wikipedia. Knowing that this talk page post is viewable to the whole world, and not having another way to reach you, MastCell, I'll mention that I think I'm still reachable off-wiki via Wikipedia's email interface, and I'd be happy to receive an email from you, if you please, about a refuge I've been building for Wikipedians who are sick and tired of numbskull edit wars and want some intellectual refreshment. I've devoted a lot of the last year to building that rather than editing here on Wikipedia, for precisely the reasons you have mentioned. I still wikignome edit here once in a while, and keep up source lists in user space. But for intellectual community, I built a different community. Email me if you'd like to know more. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Primary drug resistance

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Primary drug resistance. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

MastCell, I can hardly find the words to express how impressed I am with your ability to step into a difficult situation with intelligent guidance in such a non-threatening manner. While other admins just banned the editors, you offered good, sound advice that may help to bring about a resolution rather than just anger and hurt feelings. I wish that there were more admins like you. You are my HERO for the day and many days to come. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're far too kind, but thank you. I've actually noticed, looking back over the years, that I've become much less tolerant and much quicker to snap at people or take a hard line rather than reason with them. That said, I try to remember that when I started editing here, I got a ton of positive feedback and helpful guidance, even when I did things that (looking back on them) were obviously wrong or misguided or contrary to policy. If I hadn't gotten that feedback and guidance, I probably would have quit shortly after I started here. Anyhow, thanks for the positive feedback - your kind words are much appreciated, and happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

18 months ago..

• Registrar: (scratching head) pt x suddenly got worse over the last couple of days. Can't figure out why.....
• Me: If not using illicit substances then I have a bad feeling.....(orders CK)
• (fast forward few hours....CK=80,000)
• Registrar: ?
• Me: Errrr...I think we'll be needing the neurologists.....and an ICU bed..... Unsigned clinical vignette left by Dr. House Casliber

Fascinating. I can't say I've ever actually seen a case of neuroleptic malignant syndrome. That is a tough one, though, since there are so many other possible causes of agitation and delirium in that demographic. I have to say that whenever I'd get a call from the psych ward, it was always something unusual and worth the trip. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had something like six or seven in 18 years total, so it is pretty rare, but three were very seriously ill and in ICU for several weeks. Rare enough that if the neuro team has a young neuro reg I often have to explain, "yeah, you gotta help on this one and no I don't really have admitting rights to ICU" It is the main reason I get uneasy when meds like olanzapine and quetiapine are used for sedation or calming effects in nonpsychotic people (heard of promethazine anyone?????)....one case I did see did appear to be precipitated by a single dose of metaclopramide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've run across a lot of NMS (and tardive dyskinesia, too) in my travels with Tourette syndrome-- remember, they used to whack tics with Haldol et al. I could help on that article, although should I decide to stick around this place (which is looking less and less likely), I really owe it first to Colin to help him with Epilepsy, since he has been so much help on TS. (It occurs to me recently that one of the problems in editing TS/OCD articles is that I will frequently encounter parent advocates who have OCD themselves, making my medical editing perhaps less fun than most.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, I don't know if you saw my reply the other day, esp the bit about WhatAmIDoing's essay WP:MEDCOI. Sandy, if you are putting anything off in order to help me with Epilepsy then you probably won't start anything this year. It is going to take me a while as usual and there's so little time free: I started a new job a while back with a much longer commute. Someone has lobbed 10 years off my life but rather than take it from the usual place at the end, I'm spending time in purgatory every day. On the positive side, I'm getting through a book a week. Anyway, if I manage to do more than bits here and there, and actually get some cohesive thoughts together then I'll be sure to call on you guys. Of course, if you actually want to work on some part of Epilepsy/related then I'm certainly not stopping you: the subject is so big it can easily be divided up. But I'm sure you have your own pet interests too. It would be great to see you three work on the above syndrome and I'm sure it would pick your spirits up. Colin°^Talk 20:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You are such an optimist, Colin ... I'm not sure anything can get my spirits up about this place again. I'm not getting the "10 years off your life" part, but it sounds important. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The 10 years bit was supposed to be a joke about my awful commute. I guess it didn't work. Yesterday my bus didn't turn up so I waited half an hour in the cold for the next one. Which was late so I missed the fast train and got the slow one instead. And then the underground was delayed because of some problem with points. And I didn't get a seat. And someone with those annoying little trolley cases tripped me up on the platform. :-( Colin°^Talk 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

NMS will be good as it should be quite short and a few of us have different strengths in reviewing it, and I feel quite strongly about getting it right. I have well and truly kept clear of medical/psych articles given they've been less than fun to work on sometimes, but I don't forsee dramas with NMS...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS to policy

See my post to Colin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I commented at WT:MEDRS. I have surprisingly mixed feelings about a promotion to policy, but I think it's fantastic that this issue is gaining some visibility. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the biggest advantage of it being policy is the knock-on effect it would have on sourcing as a whole: " Ideal sources for biomedical [all] material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical [academic] journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" - Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia will ever adopt those sorts of sourcing standards across the board, and it's a minor miracle they've been accepted for medical material. Then again, I suppose we've come a long way since I was told by an Arbitrator (in response to these questions) that it would fall afoul of WP:NPOV to "promote the view" that smoking was dangerous. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But who would "promote the view" that smoking isn't dangerous? . . . dave souza, talk 21:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem, Dave, is that Wikipedia is based, in part, on a postmodernist model where everyone has an agenda, and that it's our job to merely describe these views. That is, of course, challenged by the empiricist view that finds its dominant expression in BLP, where facts actually do matter. But that puts us at odds with Wikipedia's foundationalist philosophy that we should merely be descriptive, not normative, in our articles. Like BLP, MEDRS challenges that philosophy - in fact, it's an even more dangerous challenge, since BLP, in the way it plays out, is still descriptivist, it's still formulaic. There's no need to pick "the truth", just "reliable sources". Guettarda (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you tell me. It's similar to what I'm encountering on PANDAS articles (a topic much more complex than smoking), where an independent editor weighed in to claim that I was edit warring after one revert (first revert) in the BRD cycle, to remove primary sources and false representation of one (and only one) source on a topic. No respect whatsoever for sourcing, not to mention false claim of edit warring based on one revert. Anyway, someone already launched the ill-formulated RFC at MEDRS, so now we're for sure in for a mess. And Guettarda, your proposal doesn't work for contemporary topics, where there isn't a body of peer-reviewed literature. Hugo Chavez comes to mind. Owners of that article have kept it a hagiography by preventing any use of mainstream reliable sources over leftist publications. The difference, and reason it works and is needed in medicine, is that primary sources (individual studies, yet to be replicated, based on small samples, based on faulty methodology, etc) can still get published in journals. We wait for them to be published in secondary reviews. That's not the case with other content areas, which aren't based on research studies that need replication, analysis, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean it literally - I meant that if MEDRS became policy, it might trickle down into the way people think about sourcing. As Chavez - I looked at the article and it has serious problems that are, I think, entirely orthogonal to the question of pro- or anti-Chavez bias. It's fair to criticise the fact that the second paragraph of this section begins like a government press release. But the solution isn't to to balance it with something from the other side - what's needed is something like a tertiary source, something like a review article, that looks at the pro- and anti- (and 'other') literature and tries to assess what it all means. As an aside, what strikes me about that article is it's First World bias, it's 'outsider' approach. I remember coming home in 2001 and seeing Port of Spain awash with well-dressed young Venezuelans. A Trinidadian who knows their history can learn a lot about what middle class Venezuelans think of their government, simply by looking around. But there's remarkably little context in the article about why people supported, and did not support Chavez, and about what Venezuelans think of Chavez. Even if we applied the rules of sourcing perfectly, we still not get it right.

(As for the rest - I've got a long answer in my head. But it actually works better as a response to the rest of that stuff below). Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Incidentally, looking over the TimidGuy case pages, I'm still bemused by this rather ominous question to Doc James (bottom half of diff; the top half is interesting in its own right, but James handled it admirably). I asked for clarification, but none was forthcoming. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Holy cow. Ummm, were you trying to convince to stay on Wikpedia when I'm already discouraged? :/ :/ You know, I've asked a multitude of questions of the arbs recently that have gone unanswered. [2] One doesn't even know anymore what it takes to be "drawn and quartered", but ... oh, fuck it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  If it's any consolation, in this particular case I think the decision to sanction Will was made early on, based on a global, long-term impression of his editing. There seems to have been a bit of a scramble to fill in the blanks with an actual legalistic rationale for the sanctions. ArbCom settled finally (among other things) on the forum-shopping/private evidence charge. I don't think they're going to come down hard on private evidence submissions across the board; I think this was Will-specific, in that there needed to be a coatrack of a rationale to justify sanctions against him.

  I'm basing this solely on ArbCom Kremlinology and have no actual knowledge of the Committee's deliberations, but it just doesn't make sense otherwise. I mean, ArbCom receives slanted or misleading evidence presentations privately and publicly every day. Certainly I received such "hogwash" routinely when I was active in resolving disputes and adminning at WP:AE. That's part of life - probably every submission to ArbCom is slanted in some way, to make the points its author thinks are most valid. To come down on Will specifically for something that is an essentially universal practice stemming from human nature only makes sense in some sort of broader context.

  The bottom line is that I don't think you need to worry about these principles applying more generally. Unless, of course, you end up on the wrong side of this site's personality politics... :] MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  I replied there Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  The notion that one is OK "unless, of course, you end up on the wrong side of this site's personality politics" doesn't warm my heart. I got one response from someone I believe, but it's still incomplete. The take home message is one is better to be very careful in asking questions, even privately, even of trusted arbs, considering some "personality politics". Less and less emphasis on this site is given to content, more and more to personality. Cas, I don't understand your response on that page ... I thought Will did submit it privately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Not all - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Evidence#Outing - my view is that some of these aren't but at least one is. I can't speak for the other arbs on how they viewed each diff provided here and elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, Cas ... are the arbs aware that the wording on that case is a nightmare, rendering confusion? Or am I just exceedingly dumber than the average bear? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe because I've read bits of it so many times I can't see it - do you mean the juxtaposition of WBB findings? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think I've got it now (per Roger Davies' last post), but the confusion I think arose because of confidentiality, there was a notion somewhere on some page that WBB had gone wrong by his persistence in e-mailing arbs, which is scary! I was left wondering if I should never e-mail arbs again (some of them seem to be ignoring me on another sticky wicket), along with wondering when I'll be declared in COI status because I know so many people with tics and so many people in Venezuela :) Anyway, Roger Davies' last post clears it up for me. I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Our Basic Pact of Honesty

I came across a conversation you had at User:Riskers talk regarding COI and "our basic pact of honesty with the reader". At WP:Paid Operatives I am gathering comments from wherever I find them pertaining to just those subjects and political operatives. May I include your "rant" as you called it. It is precisely the issue that troubles me---our duty to our reader. Thanking you in advance....```Buster Seven Talk 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Messy PANDAS mess

What makes something like this happen? [3] That was previously available on PMC, but is now "embargoed". Messy mess since the NIH runs PubMed, the NIMH put forward PANDAS, and something that was fit for public consumption earlier no longer is ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything sinister going on. Typically, articles presenting NIH-funded research must be distributed freely on PMC, but they're typically embargoed for 1 year from the date of publication before being put on PMC. During that time, the paper is only available in the journal, which protects the journal's business model (they're not happy about having articles freely available at all, but the thought is that most interest will occur during the first year after publication, during which the journal can profit from exclusivity).

It looks like in this case, the article was published in J. Pediatrics in Feb. 2012, and thus will become available for free on PMC in Feb. 2013. I'm not sure why it was previously available, except that sometimes journals/PMC will provide free access to "preprints". Usually once the actual article is published, it's embargoed from PMC for a year. I suspect you've already got access to the article, but if you don't and you'd like a copy for personal use, let me know and I'll email you one. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But ... but ... a conspiracy theory is so much more interesting! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Crap, I'm not a Dr and I don't even play one on television, but this isn't on, and my tax dollars are paying for it. Talk:PANDAS#Problem: moving target. Don't like the results, redefine the condition, but so how am I supposed to write a discussion of the problems with the former criteria, using secondary reviews, when they've now changed it! No wonder I'm unable to write this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, your tax dollars pay for a lot worse. Did you know that NCCAM spent $30 million investigating chelation therapy for heart disease, despite the lack of anything resembling biological plausibility ([4])? The trial was ultimately shut down, in part because OHRP identified "multiple instances of substandard practices, insurance fraud, and felony activity on the part of investigators." ([5]) But that money isn't coming back, and meanwhile I see innumerable promising cancer-research avenues wither on the vine for lack of funding.

Again, it's not totally unheard-of to refine diagnostic criteria; there's a well-publicized proposal to narrow the criteria for an autism diagnosis, and a lot of other conditions (e.g. type 2 diabetes mellitus) have had their diagnostic criteria redefined over the years. I think the best approach is to clearly state that the NIH altered the diagnostic criteria in 2010, which has implications for the previously published research. I agree that this raises some concern about goalpost-moving, and it's a little concerning how quickly and blithely they abandoned a role for strep (which was, after all, a dominant part of the initial hypothesis). But that's as may be; we just have to work with what we've got. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

wth, writing that article is hard enough :/ NIMH: read User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch37#I need your permission for a good time (you have to skip about halfway down). My talk page used to host regular cage-matches. Oh, wait ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New page patrol

My latest hobby. Will leave

• Vaginal and Oral Interventions to Control the Epidemic and
• Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination

for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:PA and "this seems to coincide with an effort by user|PPdd to turn our article on Paul M. Fleiss in a very promotional, non-encyclopedic direction."

Your ad hominum attack on me, "this seems to coincide with an effort by user|PPdd to turn our article on Paul M. Fleiss in a very promotional, non-encyclopedic direction." is entirely unjustified and violates WP:PA]. Paul Fleiss, in my opinion is a nutcase believer in alternative medicine, even homeopathy. However, his lifelong large body of work should not be overwhelmed by WP:Undue focus of a bizarre unproven accusation by a person who denies the existence of the AIDS virus, or of a frustrated prosecutor's efforts to get at his daughter by attacking her family, a minor incident in his life, and so not encyclopedic to overwhelm the article on him. I had planned on taking his article in the direction of focusing on his own nutball beliefs, not on two minor incidents in his own life that are about his his daughter and the AIDS virus denier, not major things about him. I ask that you please strike your ad hominum (and utterly false) ad hominum attack on me, which violates WP:PA. PPdd (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely close to a personal attack in that statement (which from the the look at the Paul M. Fleiss article, looks to be an accurate assessment of the way the article is turning). Yobol (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"an effort by user|PPdd to turn our article" is a statement about me, not about my edits, and violates WP:PA. I am making no such effort. It is entirely different from stating "This series of edits is unencyclopedic", which is about my edits, not about me. PPdd (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your edits at Paul M. Fleiss take the article in a promotional and unencyclopedic direction. I said as much on the article talk page. I don't see how it's possible to collaboratively build an encyclopedia if we're not allowed to discuss the impact of each others' article edits.

Unlike you, apparently, I don't think the article should disparage Fleiss is a "nutcase believer" in anything. Nor should it promote him in excessively fulsome terms as pediatrician to the stars and the second coming of Aldous Huxley. The article should just convey what independent, reliable sources have said about him. It certainly wasn't perfect before, but it's not going in the right direction now. MastCell ^Talk 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I simply think a famous scholar, pediatrician, and speaker on social issues, should have an article asbout his scholarly work, pediatrician practice, and speeches. It should not start off with MOS violating specifics in the lead abuot "circumcision" and "breast feeding", like a Hollywood sex scandal rag. These are admittedly two medical topiucs among hundreds of articles and talks he gave, but are grossly WP:UNDUE for the opening in the lead, which should be general and not specific. PPdd (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure where to start. You keep saying Fleiss is a "famous scholar", but as we've been over repeatedly, the sources I've seen don't support your claim. That doesn't stop you from repeating it several dozen times a day, which makes it hard to have a constructive discussion. It's mostly like this: "Fleiss is a famous scholar!!!!" "Er, he hasn't published much... what sources describe him as a famous scholar?" "Fleiss is a famous scholar!!!!!" and so on.

Secondly, there's nothing inherently salacious about circumcision or breast-feeding. It is literally incomprehensible to me why you equate mention of these topics with a "Hollywood sex scandal rag". Finally, as best I can tell, most of Fleiss' published work (mostly letters to the editor) are about circumcision, so I fail to see merit even in your claim of undue weight. I am completely at a loss in how to deal with your editing. MastCell ^Talk 05:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If I may offer a suggestion, the first need seems to be a review of wp:RS and wp:BLP. Much of what is being used in the article is completely inappropriate sourcing, e.g. publisher bioblurbs. I'd suggest the editor step back temporarily while studying the policies and allow others to bring the into compliance with them. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Burzynski

Hi. I have been watching the Burzynski shills on Twitter and elsewhere, good work keeping the article stable. Let me know if you need backup. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)