User talk:MastCell: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:35, 5 July 2012 editMastCell (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →Block: response← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:06, 8 July 2012 edit undoTrevelyanL85A2 (talk \| contribs)272 editsm →Block: CorrectionNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 225:		Line 225:
	::That's an accurate summary. The IP person created a new user account while the IP was blocked, to evade the block and continue arguing. ] (]) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)		::That's an accurate summary. The IP person created a new user account while the IP was blocked, to evade the block and continue arguing. ] (]) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::I agree he evaded the block by creating a new account. But at this point I'm less concerned with that technicality than with the overall level of disruption caused by this editor. I've been here 6 years and rarely seen a more dramatic or canonical example of a ], which is saying something. I'm thinking about the best approach, but he's clearly forum-shopped his pet cause into the ground. He crossed into ] territory long ago, and we're probably at the point where constructive editors shouldn't be forced to put up with this anymore.<p>(To put it another way: I think the damage done to the encyclopedia by his block evasion was minimal. He could just have waited a few more hours and ''then'' created the account. His tendentious editing is far, far more damaging to both our community of constructive editors and to our medical content. But the way things work in this effed-up place, it's much easier to block someone on the former narrow technical grounds than on the latter grounds of egregious, sustained disruption.) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)		:::I agree he evaded the block by creating a new account. But at this point I'm less concerned with that technicality than with the overall level of disruption caused by this editor. I've been here 6 years and rarely seen a more dramatic or canonical example of a ], which is saying something. I'm thinking about the best approach, but he's clearly forum-shopped his pet cause into the ground. He crossed into ] territory long ago, and we're probably at the point where constructive editors shouldn't be forced to put up with this anymore.<p>(To put it another way: I think the damage done to the encyclopedia by his block evasion was minimal. He could just have waited a few more hours and ''then'' created the account. His tendentious editing is far, far more damaging to both our community of constructive editors and to our medical content. But the way things work in this effed-up place, it's much easier to block someone on the former narrow technical grounds than on the latter grounds of egregious, sustained disruption.) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

			==Request for Arbitration==
			You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
			* ];
			* ].

			Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->--] (]) 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:06, 8 July 2012

Archives

(Date ranges are approximate)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, 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:

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 Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council again

Hi, Mast. Your closure of the Luke 19 Verse 23 thread was indeed "glorious", as Bulwersator observed. I thought you might like to know that IP 209.6.69.227 set up archiving on the ALEC page, which resulted in the talk page thread where you added so many sources rolling immediately to archives. That thread, as you may recall, was about a professor named William Cronan who was targeted with FOIA requests re his work computer activity after he criticised ALEC.

You objected to Lionelt's suggestion that the Cronan section in the article was wp:undue. What you might not be aware of is that he subsequently deleted all mention of Cronan from the article. Anyway, I pulled the thread back to the talk page, added to it, and restored the William Cronan section to the article. Thought you'd be interested, since you'd commented repeatedly in the now-restored thread. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet my best bottle of Scotch that 209.6.69.227 (talk) is operated by one or a group of people affiliated with ALEC. Which means it's pretty much hopeless - you can't write an encyclopedic article in the face of a highly active agenda-driven editor like that. First of all, you can expect exactly zero support in trying to deal with the obvious conflict of interest embodied in that IP editor. Secondly, you can expect zero support in trying to deal with hard-core agenda-driven single-purpose editors. The problem is that the editor(s) behind that IP care deeply and almost solely about ALEC. I don't, and I suspect you don't, so eventually we'll find better things to do and leave the article to them. I don't mean to be overly cynical, and I will probably re-visit the article at some point, but I can't imagine any less rewarding way to spend Memorial Day weekend than trying to deal with an ALEC-affiliated agenda-driven IP editor backed by Lionelt. Remind me in a week or two to look back at the article, and good luck. MastCell 03:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. It shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm only surprised that so many articles actually remain unbiased by strong POV editing - though I fear that Misplaced Pages is headed in that direction. Gandydancer (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same impression of 209.x re COI; your scotch is in no danger, MastCell. I'd really prefer not to care about the ALEC article, myself; I try to avoid articles about American politics. And I didn't care, when I first looked in on the article. But after seeing 209.x and a few others ( Lionelt just gave 209.x a barnstar ) who camp there expunge even overwhelmingly well-sourced content with ostensible "policy" arguments that wouldn't persuade an intelligent seven-year old... well, I take offence at that.

I do so because I want to be able feel at least some pride in Misplaced Pages, and it irritates me to see people make poor Wikipetan into their propaganda bitch. ALEC's principal activity is to create model bills, and the group camped out there has (so far) expunged all but one short sentence that gives any indication at all as to what those model bills have been about... Right, then; end of rant, but I'm afraid you're both correct that it's far too easy for a few "hard-core agenda-driven single-purpose editors" to wear down those whose primary allegiance is to the project, rather than to a "cause". I'll ping you again on this, though, in a week or two, since you're open to that. Thanks to both of you for your thoughts on this. --OhioStandard (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting through ArbCom protection...

As I mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci‎‎, you appear to have overlooked the fact that I protected User:Aixoisie/file and User:Aixoisie/file1 as an ArbCom action, to facilitate the other arbitrators' ease in seeing exactly what the pages said. Since several appear to not yet have had an opportunity to review them (it is, after all, a holiday weekend in the US), I'd appreciate it if you would restore them; while I appreciate your promptness, an ArbCom member will remove them when they are no longer needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Us non-admins would appreciate it too. Some of us are getting very interested in what ArbCom does. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Since all of the Arbs are able to view deleted content, I don't see how my action makes it any more difficult for them to evaluate the material in question. And I don't see the purpose served by restoring public visibility to material which, after all, ArbCom ordered deleted by fiat. I decline to restore the material, because I believe it should remain deleted. But if you or another admin chooses to undo my deletion, then I will not wheel-war or re-delete it. As you know, Arbitration Committee membership does not confer special executive powers on individual arbitrators. If you are acting on behalf of a consensus of the Committee, rather than as an individual Arbitrator, then please let me know and I will of course do as the Committee requests.

Also, please don't bother saying things like "I'm sure you didn't actually mean to hide evidence of wrongdoing preserved for an ArbCom review". It's beneath you, since you know I'm neither trying to hide, nor actually hiding, anything from the Committee. And when you attempt to cow people with those sorts of veiled threats, it suggests that you're aware that your actions lack a rational basis in policy. MastCell 03:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Coffee Party USA

Hello MastCell. I recently noticed the SPI in which you uncovered that user NP was a sockpuppet of user TP (see here). There is another account I wanted to bring to your attention here, that edited concurrently with user TP in April 2010 (same article, Coffee Party USA), with similar characteristics. In this somewhat cryptic edit, they make reference to creating additional accounts to continue their edits. They haven't edited for quite some time know, but I wanted to make you aware of it in case it was a sleeper. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Any duck-hunter would agree those are the same editors, but I doubt we'll see any more edits from that specific account. However, this static IP 207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs) of his is seeing renewed activity (within the past few days), and poses a problem. Can an IP registered to New York State Unified Court System be blocked? Or is monitoring it the best we can do? There is no doubt the blocked editor is using that IP, as he admits here, and again here -- and in this edit he says the name 'Manoa' should be removed from an article, which he then goes ahead and removes with his TruthfulPerson sock account here. I noted this 207.x.x.x IP on the previous SPI page for this editor, but nothing came of it. IPs 24.193.146.216 (talk · contribs) and 98.116.75.221 (talk · contribs) are also in use by the now blocked editor. Those appear to be newer versions of his old IPs: 24.193.146.146 (talk · contribs) and 98.116.113.166 (talk · contribs), also listed on the old SPI page. I suppose he wasn't kidding when he said an endless supply of IPs and accounts are available to him. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to block an IP registered to the New York state court system, but I don't see a lot of recent activity from 207.29.40.2 (talk). And the contribution log suggests that the IP, which is after all a proxy server for the court system, is probably being used by multiple people. I think the best approach in dealing with editors using dynamic or multiple IPs is to semi-protect the target articles; if you see these IPs actively editing a specific article, please let me know and I'll look into it. As an aside, if block evasion becomes a persistent problem, most states have laws against using state-owned computer systems or other information-technology resources for partisan political purposes, but I'm not sure that would be a productive road to go down. MastCell 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus theory

Mast, in looking for something else in CONS, I came across your ideal vs. reality edit. While I agree from my own experience that that's true, I was wondering what you thought that it contributed to that policy? Should that recognition have some practical effect or create some practical consideration in regard to consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I love your user page and the good sense of humor you show. Now ... back to writing articles! Bearian (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Best with Scotch

For your reading pleasure... Sources:American Legislative Exchange Council. Of course the pleasure bit is on account of the Scotch. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to believe that the editors at American Legislative Exchange Council will respect independent, reliable sources, even when they conflict with editors' personal agendas. Of course, I'd also like to believe that someday I'll be part of a three-way with Ségolène Royal and Naomi Klein. I'm not sure which belief is more realistic. MastCell 03:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If I was the gambling type I'd go with the french girls, but you gotta have dreams. On a slightly related issue, this looks interesting. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren, again, 05 June 2012

Below is a warning that I placed on the talk page of Gandydancer (talk) today. He has reverted other editor's edits several times in the last 24 hours. I remember that you blocked me even before I passed 3RR when I was editing the Elizabeth Warren article. I'm just trying to figure out why I was pre-emptively blocked for 3RR, but editors such as Gandydancer get a free pass. I went to the talk page, as you suggested that I do, when I made the edit today. I explain there why the information is not-notable and not relevant. Gandydancer did NOT go to the talk page and discuss the topic with me before he reverted me. The information is not notable or relevant to the topic of Elizabeth Warren. It is merely a person explaining how difficul it is to do ancestry research. The person does not speak to Warren specifically. The person doesn't provide even an opinion, much less a new fact on Warren's situation. Many editors have expressed the opinion that the Indian ancestry section is getting too long and cluttered, but when I remove irrelevant, non-notable information I am reverted, by an editor who is over 3RR, and that editor does not provide any discussion on the matter. Also, you are an admin who has been watching the article and you blocked me with the claim that I needed to slow down. However, when Gandydancer violates 3RR nothing. I'm just confused. Can you explain to me why you decided to enforce the pre-emptive 3RR for me, but the regular 3RR for Gandydancer does not apply? (1) Revert 1, (2) Revert 2, (3) Revert 3, and (4) Revert 4. --Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, what you're calling Revert 1 and Revert 2 are actually two consecutive edits by Gandydancer, and thus constitute a single revert (per policy). Secondly, the edits you've cited span a time frame greater than 24 hours. That's why I haven't blocked Gandydancer. Arguably, he could be blocked for general edit-warring that doesn't quite reach the 3RR threshold - but if I went down that route, I'd be blocking at least two other editors as well.

In any case, I'm hardly the final word on the matter; if you disagree with my take on it, you're welcome to report edit-warring at the relevant noticeboard. You should be aware that if you do so, your own revert-warring will come under scrutiny as well. I think the most likely administrative intervention at this point would be page protection, given the high volume of multilateral reverts flying back and forth, but if you'd like to pursue it then that's the proper forum. MastCell 19:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not afraid to have my edits reviewed because I was not engaging in an edit war. I was just editing. It is you and Gandydancer who believe that when I edit I am somehow "edit warring." One man's ceiling is another man's floor. Also, I am just pointing out to you the obvious double standard here. You did not block me the other day for 3RR. You blocked me because you claimed that I was "edit warring." That is an all purpose "I'm just gonna block you" kind of reason. It applies whether I make one edit or 500 edits. But back to the double standard, I noticed that you choose not to pull out the generic "edit warring" claim on Gandydancer, even though you did pull out the claim on me earlier. That's fine. That's your prerogative as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Wikipedian admin. Yes, I know that I am not to question the great Oz, but like Toto I feel the need to pull back the curtain on the actions of admins. Have a good day! I'll go now and just wait for you to find a reason to block me for expressing my opinion which just happened to be different than yours. Best,--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm hardly the last word on the matter. I don't have any special powers or prerogatives above the other 1,000+ admins on this project, and I think you're doing yourself a disservice by personalizing the matter. As a general matter, I think you'll find that people here will respond better to a less combative and less passive-aggressive tone, but you're free to take or leave that advice as you see fit. If you're not happy with my answer here, you're welcome to go to the edit-warring noticeboard and file a report, where other admins will review it. It is a judgment call, and another admin may well come to a different conclusion than I. MastCell 23:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to appeal it. I will lose anyway. The law of admins basically states that unless there is an outrageously bad call then the ruling of the original admin stands. I tend to agree with that unwritten rule also. It parrots the civil proof of evidence rule in Texas which states that a appeal court cannot overrule a trial court on a matter of discretion unless that trial court judge committed an abuse of discretion. Appealing your block was never the point of my comments. The point of my comments is that admins should be open to feedback without getting defensive. So far, you have much more patient than the average admin. You have, so far, not found a technicality to use to block me. That is usually the defensive response that I get from my feedback. Also, my feedback, whether you agree or not, is useful if you can allow yourself to be honest with yourself. I pointed out that you slammed me with a pre-emptive 3RR, but you did not do such a thing with Gandydancer, who was clearly looking for a fight. So far, your only defensive push back has been is, and I give you credit for this, that you commented upon me personally (e.g., I quote you directly on this one, "passive-aggressive tone"). This comment is once again a judgement call and it is not a matter of fact. At any rate, it is an incorrect characterization of my comments. I understand why you might not like what I'm saying because very few regular editors are brave enough (or stupid enough, depending upon your point of view) to actually attempt to give an admin feedback that is honest and useful. And of course both of those adjectives do apply because my feedback is both honest and useful and your mischaracterization of my comments as "passive-aggressive" completely discounts my honesty and ignores the usefulness of what I have told you. Once again, that is the nature of admin/regular editor relationship. Admins just don't want to hear feedback especially from someone that they just blocked--in a borderline inappropriate manner. Misplaced Pages would be a better place if an editor could provide admins input without being called "passive-aggressive" but that is the nature of the game.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not savvy enough to appeal my block; took me several hours just to find my own talk page!

And I suppose I cannot convince YOU to willingly lift it? If you consider a calm, restrained, reference to a legitimate news story running counter to Lizzie as being "hostile", well then, what's the point? Can I mention Woodward and Bernstein on Nixon's talk page? Guess that's kind of hostile to him, too.

I should point out, btw, that a HUGE chunk of the talk page consists of people really really BASHING her over stuff as silly as a cookbook. I took no (or very little?) part in that. Nor have I used "Lieawatha" etc in the first person. Just a dispassionate plea for others (like yourself?) to stop trying to embargo legitimate news stories.

Here we have a solid Rutgers professor charging her -- in print -- with something nasty, and of an investigation that produced 2 reports on the matter. These aren't my charges, these aren't my opinions, and I didn't even try to force them into the article, although they definitely SHOULD be there. If you won't even allow them onto the TALK pages, however, well, then, what's the point of allowing ANY dissention? Just delete the whole Cherokee section and be done with it. No point being half-assed in whitewashing something.

Cheers 66.105.218.9 (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm asking NICELY. Why did you (or someone) routinely delete my legitimate contributions to the talk page, when today you give a pass to people posting the EXACT SAME THING ("misconduct" accusations).

I have nothing against Warren. But that doesn't give the whitewash team the right to delete all negative information...while sticking in subjective terms like "expert".

Expert, LOL. Why not add in "genius" and "inspiration"?! 66.105.218.18 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Know much about this, or interested in discussing Luciddreamworld (talk · contribs)'s concerns that the article needs warnings? Start of a discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I know much about the topic; it's not particularly interesting to me; and I don't really have the patience to deal with yet another True-Believer-On-A-Mission-To-Make-Sure-Misplaced Pages-Reflects-THE-TRUTH at the moment. Sort of a trifecta. :) MastCell 16:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. A very smart choice on your part. I'll take it up the WP:DR chain if there's anything further from him, but I'm hoping that it's already over. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection New Party

Please explain your Protection of New Party article. This appears to have been done without any reason. The issue at hand is well sourced, and consencus is clear for its inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.94.115 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's a clear consensus for the material to be included, then the semi-protection is irrelevant. Surely one of the other editors who form this consensus will reinsert it. MastCell 04:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Remove The Protection On Final Fantasy Type-0

A certain group of too enthusiastic fans have been littering the page with unreliable and moody sources regarding Western localization. The only solid facts there are to go on are the ones from the supplemental Ultimania material. Moreover, the "hints" that were provided by these questionable sources (read: some random bloggers on the internet) have all been directed towards this year's E3. That has come and gone, with no verifications or comments or anything regarding a Western release. The edits and reverts I have been making were not for the sole sake of just starting some petty edit war - I was merely cleaning up the mess they created. However, they keep reverting my edits and directing me to the talk page to discuss. When fallacious information and unverified sources are in question, there is no "talk" - and that is something which they do not seem to grasp. I ask that you remove the protection so that I may remove the false information, or at the very least, you remove them. I can direct you towards the unverified information as well as the verified one. Then, I ask you to protect the page so it may no longer be abused by them. Thank you. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. I don't want to start an argument on your talk page, so I won't respond to any of that, but if you do happen to want any more information on this situation, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Final_Fantasy_Type-0#PS_Vita_release or the IP's talk page. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning to remove the semi-protection; in fact, I'll probably revisit it with an eye to extending its duration or potentially upping it to full protection. MastCell 16:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be most appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be fine as well to full protection - so long as the fallacious information is removed. Otherwise, it's nothing but misleading the readers without any context. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

...As I said above. I'll comply, so long as the misinformation is removed. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Mastcell. So, I know you mentioned the prospect of extending the protection on this article . Not long after the protection ended, another IP came and tried to remove the information. While it wasn't the same IP number above, their approach was awfully similar, ie not discussing on talk page and feeling their personal view trumps the reliable source. I was wondering if you could help with further protection, or if you think we should wait longer first. Let me know. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've extended the semi-protection by a week, to encourage the IP editor(s) to sort this issue out on the talk page. MastCell 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As you can see on the article's talk page and the original IP's talk page above, I've tried discussing any number of times, so I'm more than willing to, should they (he?) finally decide to do so. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AE appeal by TrevelyanL85A2

I've copied over an appeal to AE as the editor is blocked. Seraphimblade 07:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A banned user posted a message at User talk:TrevelyanL85A2 and there is disagreement about whether that message should be removed. As you recently blocked TrevelyanL85A2 following an AE request, may I ask your opinion on their restoration of the message (diff). While the message is harmless enough, I would have thought that DENY applied, and would appreciate your advice. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the user talk page for the remainder of the block, so that everyone can get back to doing something more productive. MastCell 19:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Chip Rogers

Is getting more IP or "single edit" editors on a regular basis. I think protection of some sort would make sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a pretty low threshold for semi-protecting BLPs, especially those of active politicians during election season. I gave it a week, which will hopefully discourage the IP editors from edit-warring and drive discussion to the talkpage. If the issue recurs after the week is up, you can let me know or go to WP:RFPP. MastCell 00:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. "If I were King of the Forest" <g>, we would already have "pending changes" back in place for all political and religious BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

7-Keto

Hi MastCell,

I appreciate your diligence on the 7-Keto page and I want to work with you to reach an acceptable solution.

Please review the attached from the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/acmd1/acmd-steroids-advice-2012?view=Binary

Please also consider the following. If you are going to mention WADA then we certainly need to include all of this information as well.

In March, 2007 the Department of Health and Ageing and the Office of Chemical Safety of the Australian Government completed an extensive review of the androgenic potential of 7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone (7-Keto). Their findings were as follows:

“Data from the published literature as well as from your submission establishes that whilst structurally related to DHEA and testosterone, 7-Keto-DHEA does not have biological action at the androgen receptor. It would appear that the presence of the oxygen double bond on the 7-Keto-DHEA molecule prevents binding to, and hence activation of, the androgen receptor. Thus this substance is not expected to produce an androgenic effect.”

In February 2012 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) (London) reversed their decision that 7-Keto is an anabolic agent. In November 2011, the ACMD had previously advised that 7-Keto was an anabolic steroid and should be classified as a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in Class C. This decision was based primarily on the fact that the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) had classified 7-Keto as an anabolic steroid because it was a metabolite of DHEA. However, after receiving a dossier of peer-reviewed literature supporting the fact that 7-Keto is not an anabolic substance, the ACMD reconsidered their previous decision and came to the conclusion that it could not describe 7-Keto as an anabolic agent and that it did not warrant inclusion in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with mentioning the ACMD letter. But you can't just remove all the information you disagree with, and replace it with the information you agree with. Here you removed an article from WebMD because you disagree with its conclusions. We need to rely on published interpretations of the medical literature, rather than producing our own reviews or syntheses. This is spelled out in the site guideline on sourcing for medical content.

Here you remove the fact that 7-Keto DHEA is a steroid. Do you disagree that it's a steroid?

Finally, may I ask whether you're affiliated with the production, marketing, or promotion of 7-Keto supplements? MastCell 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell -- I appreciate your response. I assure you that I respectfully disagree with the idea that I'm removing information I disagree with and replacing it with information I do agree with. Let's go through the points -- I wanted to make sure it was classified as a metabolite of DHEA but there's no reason not to include the word steroid, so that can certainly be returned. Re: WebMD, Since the claims about insufficient human data are default WebMD language for when they don't have enough information on a particular subject, I struggle with the decision to refute published medical literature citing human clinical data in favor of copied and pasted default WebMD text. If it would help, I will source more information on the anabolic and WADA status as well as human clinical data so that we offer a fuller picture. Perhaps we want to introduce a full separate section addressing the anabolic challenges (or any other research challenges)? Might make more sense and enable a more thorough discussion than the header allows. As I said, I appreciate your diligence and I'm confident that we can work together to end up with a well-sourced, comprehensive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs)

p.s. -- Sorry to bombard you with information (but I suppose more is better, right?) I found a review of the Delbeke paper on Prohormones in Sport, and I also have some safety information addressing the “pro-hormone” issues and the “anabolic steroid” issues. I also found results of a urine test showing that 7-Keto administration does not interfere with urine screens for anabolic steroids.

Lastly, I reviewed the Sulcova and Hampl paper you included that talks about the delayed effects of 7-Keto on various hormonal steroids. In this study the 7-Keto was applied topically for 8 consecutive days and then terminated. After the first dose levels of 7 beta hydroxy-dehydroepiandrosterone was increased and testosterone and gonadotropins were decreased. 7 beta hydroxy-dehydroepiandrosterone is one of 7-Keto’s main metabolites so it is not surprising that it is elevated after 7-Keto administration and it is not a hormone or pro-hormone. Testosterone was decreased so 7-Keto is not converting to testosterone. 7-Keto has a half-life of 2.2 hours so by 12 hours after terminating the administration it will no longer be present in the body so the “late” changes in testosterone and estradiol etc. that they report cannot be attributed to 7-Keto administration.

With the end goal of a comprehensive, thorough article, I'm okay with any and all of these topics being introduced as long as we cover the full picture and present both sides. Per my previous message, maybe a separate section? Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. First of all, I'm happy to discuss any published medical/scientific literature on 7-Keto, or any reviews/position statements by reputable expert bodies. The best thing to do is probably to place links to the sources on the article talk page (Talk:7-Keto-DHEA), so that other interested editors can also comment.

I think you have to understand that the existence of one or two small clinical trials (especially those published outside the MEDLINE-indexed literature) isn't necessarily "sufficient evidence" of benefit. If 7-Keto-DHEA were evaluated scientifically, as a pharmaceutical, the existing data wouldn't be anywhere close to what would be needed to claim efficacy. The WebMD langauge - that there is "insufficient evidence" to support the use of 7-Keto-DHEA - is actually a reflection of the existing state of the literature, which is sufficient only to say that more, larger, and better-designed trials should be conducted.

Please take a look at the site guidelines for medical content. We can't just pick out a bunch of primary sources (that is, individual journal articles) and juxtapose them to make the point we want to make. We need to look at how independent secondary sources have interpreted existing data. Those secondary sources might include WebMD, WADA, the ACMD, Micromedex, etc.

Are you comfortable answering my question about any potential connection to production/marketing/promotion of 7-Keto supplements? MastCell 16:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell -- Of course, I'm sorry, I missed that before. I'm self-employed but I do have a connection to the manufacturers of the dietary ingredient (not the finished supplements). I'm aware of potential conflicts of interest and, as I've stated, am motivated to end up with a thorough and comprehensive article, and I welcome assistance to ensure neutrality. Did you have thoughts on my recommendation to initiate a full section to address risks and benefits? As I said, I am happy to address any issues as long as we present the full picture. I also don't want to create extra work for you (per the discussion below this, I see that you have your hands full!) so let me know what I can do. Writer (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi Mastcell. i have seen you editing many medical pages and I wanted to ask for your help. I was reading an article and I realized that it needed major help but I really don't know how to fix it. It reads like an uncritical ad for the procedure. Maybe you could take a look and see. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/Oil_pulling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.32.126 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. a13ean (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will take a look, but I'm feeling pretty burnt-out at the moment and can't promise anything. The amount of sustained effort needed to clean up and maintain these sorts of low-profile alternative-medicine articles is prohibitive. There are hundreds of such articles, and for every such article, there is at least one person with a deeply vested interest in using the article to promote the treatment. I'm one person, and I don't actually have a vested interest in any of this stuff, except that I think this site should provide accurate medical information.

I've dealt with hundreds of these people and articles, and it really feels like a poor use of my time. If there were any sort of serious commitment from "the community" to accurate and useful medical content, it might be worthwhile, but there isn't. MastCell 16:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to edit conflict you -- I think I got this one. I know the feeling. Cheers a13ean (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... I appreciate it. I did a quick PubMed search and there is actually some published literature from the Indian dentistry community, so perhaps it won't be impossible to write a decent article here. Thanks again. MastCell 16:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I chose you because I have always been impressed with your knowledge and even handedness on medical articles. People do appreciate what you do. I will learn how to tag and edit soon. I just have to remember my account name and password! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.135.60 (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Another possible Soapbox concern

Hi, I saw your note at User talk:Andrewrp#Not a soapbox and was wondering if a similar sentiment would be appropriate for the main poster who appears to be wanting a good argument? After several months it's put off a number of editors and more are weighing in on this one editor and no work on the actual article is getting accomplished. If there is somewhere else to ask please point me in that direction. Insomesia (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to North8000 (talk · contribs). I haven't followed the discussion at Talk:Homophobia in depth, but at a glance it does appear that North8000 is persisting in arguing his points despite substantial objections from a number of other editors. And it does appear that tempers are fraying a bit.

That said, I don't think this is a clear-cut case of talk-page abuse a la Andrewrp (talk · contribs), so I'm hesitant to step in and be heavy-handed. I think the best approach is to clearly outline your objections once; if one editor persists in pursuing their arguments despite failing to convince anyone else, then I've always found WP:SHUN to contain excellent (if hard-to-implement) advice. MastCell 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I think shun could work if there weren't so many editors involved. I'm thinking we need an administrator to look at the situation if Noth8000 won't stop arguing circularly. Insomesia (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Health insurance mandate

Hey, I saw your posts on the talk page of the individual health care mandate article. You said "But I get a clear sense of ownership here, and unless other editors are willing to chime in, I don't feel like dealing with it at present." and I totally agree - that editor (TVC 15) has been questioned on the talk page by multiple other editors (including me, check out the POV section) and he continues to delete/revert any mention of support for the individual mandate. It's fairly clear to me that he's a Republican who is trying to push his party's agenda on Misplaced Pages. Is there something we can do about this guy? I'm willing to do something if you are. I'm sure the other editors who have raised issues with him would be willing to as well. Winampman (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the talk page basically looks like a succession of editors coming the article, being appalled by it, and voicing good-faith concerns on the talkpage, only to be drowned out and beaten down by TVC 15 (talk · contribs). I guess I'm the most recent in that line. It's a shame that a relatively important and high-profile article is so poor.

At the same time, I know from experience that it requires an immense investment of energy to try to improve such an article in the face of an entrenched, combative owner, and at best we'll all come out a little bloodied and a little less patient. I've been through that cycle plenty of times, and some of the material on my user page is there to remind me to carefully weigh what I hope to achieve against what it will cost in terms of time, effort, and goodwill.

The problem is that Misplaced Pages has no formal mechanism to favor sane, constructive editors over tendentious, agenda-driven editors. In fact, as outlined in User:MastCell#16 here, our processes actually favor editors who obsessively push a focused agenda.

I think the best hope is to get a number of editors interested in the page and move away from one-on-one arguments with the article owner. Even if the interested editors don't all agree with me, or with you, they will provide a buffer to help pry the article away from single-editor ownership and back to something that can be edited collaboratively. I think that once the Supreme Court decision is handed down (later this week?), there will be more interest in the article, and hopefully with some new eyes on the situation we can make some progress.

Sorry for the cynicism; hope that helps, and good luck. MastCell 16:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WT:NIME

You beat me to including my rationale and counterproposal. Do check back and comment again. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Block

Nenpog evaded your block. See this write up. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a summary: Nepong's User 79.182.199.172 account was blocked 24 hours, from 04:17, 20 June 2012 to 04:16, 21 June 2012. Nepong then avoided the block and detection by creating new account to begin editing during the 24 hour block at 01:49, 21 June 2012. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an accurate summary. The IP person created a new user account while the IP was blocked, to evade the block and continue arguing. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree he evaded the block by creating a new account. But at this point I'm less concerned with that technicality than with the overall level of disruption caused by this editor. I've been here 6 years and rarely seen a more dramatic or canonical example of a tendentious editor, which is saying something. I'm thinking about the best approach, but he's clearly forum-shopped his pet cause into the ground. He crossed into I-can't-hear-you territory long ago, and we're probably at the point where constructive editors shouldn't be forced to put up with this anymore.

(To put it another way: I think the damage done to the encyclopedia by his block evasion was minimal. He could just have waited a few more hours and then created the account. His tendentious editing is far, far more damaging to both our community of constructive editors and to our medical content. But the way things work in this effed-up place, it's much easier to block someone on the former narrow technical grounds than on the latter grounds of egregious, sustained disruption.) MastCell 17:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

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

Thanks,--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)