Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor

Off Topic

I cite this series of revisions by Inhouse expert as both off topic to the issue of agreeing/disagreeing to the mediation and to ungodly long. Please require a very specific set of posting guidelinet to keep this from flying off the rails. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I also note that some editors are trying to pull me in by associating me with their claims. I specifically note inhouse expert's sceed on my talk page that I am at the point of calling forum shoping at. Hasteur (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to ask since this Dr. Proctor has become most famous or infamous depending on who one talks to worldwide for his hair loss formulas using complicated and patented custom chemical formulas, if these formulas can be included in the article and in mediation if need be to determine their efficacy and supporting documentation relative to approved FDA Finasteride & Minoxidil? BTW incorrect on forum shop, I went to above's talk pg because found my hours of volunteer research was deleted by him on mediation page & yes my edits are thorough & there is a place to add topics.Inhouse expert (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate place to discuss potential material for the Peter Proctor article is on the Peter Proctor talk page: Talk:Peter Proctor. If editors there cannot reach consensus, the next steps would be WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Mediation is farther along in the process ... see WP:Dispute resolution for details. --Noleander (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am seeing this particular point going around in cricles. Apart from the advertisemens posted and quoted by various editors, their is no reliable source that quotes this and the subject of the article to be the same. The advertisements say nothing about the real profession of the Dr. We at Wikipedia cannot judge the accuracy of the treatment of the doctor. We can only ask the meditaors to judge if both people are the same. -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears at the bottom of page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nucleophilic perhaps objects so would that mean that it could be added in the place for additional issues on the mediation page, in regards to is it the same person http://www.drproctor.com/ , incl. it in article and references for efficacy of patented ingredients in such hair formula relative to FDA drug Finasteride can be included here. While we can't judge the accuracy of the treatment, since Androgenetic Alopecia is a medically recognized condition treated with FDA approved Finasteride & minoxidil, when a Dr. proffers his own unique patented treatment being sold worldwide for almost 40 years of "mystery ingredients" + NANO(nictonic n-oxide), PBN/Ntbha & SOD's, he holds the original patent on copper-binding peptide hair growth stimulators widely used http://www.hairsite.com/topical/t-proxiphen.htm http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=102393 and suggests that they have been the subject of a 3 year clinical trial in advertisements for such with incredible pictures here in ads of Dr. Proctors http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/showthread.php/59371-Dr-Proctor-Snake-oil-n-since-(at-least)-1987/page6 in which ad at the time he says he is "able to double the response rate of existing hair loss therapies", if that is so, that is a medical breakthrough worthy of Wikipedia & in that case we could cover all or some portion thereof on the efficacy of such relative to the FDA drug Finasteride couldn't we? Inhouse expert (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment (concerning completeness of list of parties) moved from case information page

The first comment in this thread was originally made on the case page, but has been moved to here (the talk page) because extended discussion may not take place on the case information page. AGK [•] 16:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps by some oversight, this list is incomplete. A glance at the page will show that I am involved in this dispute and so is user:drjem3. We support nucleophilic's position. Bandn (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The list has been updated, per discussion in the last section of this page. Thanks, AGK [•] 16:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Some parties added for completeness, have decided to not respond even though they have notes from an editor in Jan & one from me on their talk page about Mediation response, particularly Drjem3 (talk · contribs) and Sthubertus (talk · contribs), what is the deadline on them to respond & if no response what impact does this have on mediation, if any, moving forward? I move for the deletion of extended comments by an editor Amadscientist, that editor acknowledges originally had no evidence to support them, as completely inappropriate & unfounded & not necessary to acceptance of mediation. Incidently these 2 schools HR & Registars are aware fo this mediation/DRN process and should get an official Wikipedia invite to participate in mediation as they know if he worked there or not & education there under dispute http://www.bcm.edu/hr/contact & http://hr.utmb.edu/. Inhouse expert (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Point of information

In case any of the mediators are unaware of it, please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor. (If I'm telling you what you already know, no problem, but I figured this would be of significant importance to this case.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Note the comment above and am seriously concerned about it. Are we going to have sock puppets controlling this mediation? -Wikishagnik (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the mediation will be cancelled - but I cannot say for certain. --Noleander (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the specific question of socks controlling anything, they have all been blocked, so they will have no further control at all. I imagine that this leaves no editors on that "side" of the mediation discussion, but I could be incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

At least three other unblocked pseudonyms have tastes like Proctor: User:Cjbetti, User talk:Fizicist, User talk:Bigbuck. They are quiet now. Who knows how many more are in reserve or are unknown. Proctor invested a lot of time here and is now watching his elaborate empire be eradicated. So further drama could be expected. Some of us have already noticed weird things starting to happen in January coinciding with when Proctor must have foreseen the trajectory of the conversations being led by senior, neutral editors. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I added a note to the SPI case capturing the names of those three accounts. If more issues arise, additional action can be taken at that time. --Noleander (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cancelling this mediation does not solve anything. If Proctor is conducting a well organized campaign of publicity that includes Wikipedia articles about Nobel Prize Fantasies and careful avoidance of possible hairfall products, then this needs to be discussed in a larger and more powerful forum. if a person can come with 3 sock puppets in a month, he can develop 36 sock puppet accounts in a year. What then? How many can you block (or even bother about)? -Wikishagnik (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)