Talk:Prostatitis/Archive 3

Schmoopster (aka sock puppet Reasonablelogicalman) spam

 * Schmoopster aka Reasonablelogicalman, your ownership of the prostatitis.org website actually mitigates against your argument. Twice now you have joined WP simply to add your spam, and this is damning for your case. You are not acting in good faith, and should desist. If you go further with this, I will apply to have you, your sock puppets and IP address indefinitely banned. Skopp   ( Talk )  00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 Edits he made from his IP address Edits he made as Schmoopster Edits he made as Reasonablelogicalman  Truly appalling. BH, can't you do something decent with your life? Skopp  ( Talk )  01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This actually is worse than I initially thought. You and your sockpuppets, including the IP address you have used (165.166.193.82), have only one agenda here, and that is to add your various "foundations" to the Wikipedia. I know who you are, initials BH, and I shall name you openly if you continue to disrupt and abuse this encyclopedia. Your name and actions will then become part of the permanent record of this encyclopedia. The individual concerned here has registered a myriad of .org websites, for many medical conditions, and he is now systematically trying to spam WP with the URLs. All of these websites have prominently featured "Donation" pages and he has obtained charity status for each, as an incentive to garner tax-deductible donations. I managed to reverse his damage at Human Cloning, see my comments at Talk:Human_cloning &mdash; that gives you an idea of what he's up to. Edit histories of the sock puppets:

False Accusations of Sock Puppetry and Threats by SKOPP
Skopp has made false accusations of sock puppetry and has made several threats: "I will apply to have you, your sock puppets and IP address indefinitely banned." "I know who you are, initials BH, and I shall name you openly if you continue to disrupt and abuse this encyclopedia." Skopp even says, "Truly appalling. BH, can't you do something decent with your life?" I request the administrators to investigate the false claim of sock puppetry, and also to investigate the threats SKOPP makes which violate the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia advises members to post anonymously as those who post their names have been flamed and spammed, yet SKOPP threatens to name someone openly, and apparently threatens to make personal attacks. I will continue with the appeals process, I am back after disengaging for over 1 month, according to the process guidelines. It appears that SKOPP is the webmaster of a commercial website and continues to try to have his commercial link be the first one under prostatitis on Wikipedia. To prevent this clever commercial enterprise, which only allows edits that support his medical view as on his commercial website, from owning Wikipedia I am changing the links to the DMOZ link: which is strictly in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Once SKOPP's commercial link is gone I will attempt to edit Wikipedia by adding summaries of medical articles. Administrators, please look for inappropriate responses by SKOPP and his sock puppets. SKOPP's commercial website stands to lose a lot from the removal of his link. In addition, please note that SKOPP has prevented the infectious disease theory of prostatitis from being posted. He insists that Type III prostatitis is "pelvic myoneuropathy" when research shows that it may well be an infectious disease. The theory of pelvic myoneuropathy has a commercial website, a book, and sells several commercial products, and herbal products. For the administrators, here is a current article published on prostatitis and infection: Reasonablelogicalman 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Admins are well advised to look carefully at the actions of Reasonablelogicalman and see that he and/or his IP/puppet has posted links here and at Human Cloning, as well as other pages. See the talk page at Human Cloning for the reasons he is doing this. Furthermore, extensive proven details have been sent to me on the past activities of this individual, including his establishment of numerous "foundations" with charity status, all in areas of medicine where many dissatisfied /unhappy /suffering patients exist, all with their own websites urging donations. I ask any admin interested in the nefarious background of this individual to contact me for more details, which, I assure you, are pretty shocking.   Skopp   21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the removal of the link to chronicprostatitis.com &mdash; that link was well discussed in the archives. You are supposed to review archives before making changes. It's called "consensus". In short: the site sells nothing, although like almost every site it does carry adverts, it has over 70 unique pages (contents not found elsewhere on the Internet) on the topic, far more data than we can include on the Prostatitis page, it cites scientific sources for all the data it presents, it contains a very busy forum, the busiest on the Internet, and as such it is an eminently useful resource for patients and physicians alike. The DMOZ listings are littered with snake-oil, dangerous and outdated links, examples being:
 * An Herbal Treatment for Hormone Induced Prostatitis &mdash; there is no such thing as "hormone induced prostatitis"
 * Acu-Cell: Prostatitis &mdash; how prostatitis is caused by too much zinc - again, there is no such thing
 * Prostatitis Green Therapy &mdash; how to cure CPPS by taking a secret blend of Chinese herbs, for a price, and so on

In other words, DMOZ, in this instance, presents a list of rubbish links. If you want to debate this point, we'll wait for input.  Skopp   22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Inserting studies that claim CPPS is infectious
Eradication of unusual pathogens by combination pharmacological therapy is paralleled by improvement of signs and symptoms of chronic prostatitis syndrome. Magri V, Trinchieri A, Ceriani I, Marras E, Perletti G. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2007 Jun;79(2):93-8. "Long-term improvement of signs and symptoms of prostatitis indicates that combination therapy is beneficial for symptomatic patients showing evidence of infection by unusual pathogens at the prostatic level. Our data support the hypothesis that organisms other than the traditionally recognized uropathogens may play a role in the onset of prostatitis." Reasonablelogicalman 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The citing of this study clearly shows why this editor should be banned from making any edits to this page. He says I (and other agreeing editors, by implication) am wrong to exclude bacterial theories for Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CPPS), also known ironically as chronic abacterial prostatitis (yes, that's ABACTERIAL or non-bacterial), and then, to prove I am wrong, he cites a study that looks at men with chronic BACTERIAL prostatitis, a wholly different entity. I quote from the study's abstract, where it is clearly stated that the patients selected were infected, so they were by definition not CPPS patients: "... in 104 symptomatic patients showing evidence of infection by traditional uropathogens (TU) or by unusual pathogens (UP) at the prostatic level. " These are not CPPS patients, as anyone with a scintilla of medical knowledge would immediately realize. The article already has a very good section covering chronic BACTERIAL prostatitis, so this is simply a ridiculous and wrong-headed attempt to disrupt this page. This bacterial controversy was long debated amongst scientists and eventually the most eminent researchers and Western universities concluded, some years ago, that there is no basis for claiming an infectious etiology, or ongoing infection, in CPPS (except for the nanobacteria theory, which is on the fringes with very little support). Studies supporting this conclusion were published in the world's premier peer-reviewed Urology journals, so this is an absurd argument.  Skopp   22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * SKOPP is wrong in his interpretation of this study. The point of this study is that many men would have been diagnosed as Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome if they had not been tested for unusual pathogens and thus were moved into the category of chronic BACTERIAL prostatitis. Also, note that SKOPP again moves the link to the commercial website ChronicProstatitis.com to first under the links section.Reasonablelogicalman 16:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, no. There have been a plethora of studies looking for these "unusual pathogens" like coryneforms, and they simply do not feature as an important issue in men with Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (more of them were found in controls: Coryneform bacteria were found in semen of 76% men with inflammatory prostatitis and 83% controls). That's the key finding from the millions spent on research into this very question in the last 10 years! And to compound matters, when these men are treated to eradicate them, it did not produce the hoped for outcomes either. More evidence that you have no place editing this page.   Skopp   16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The scam being supported and propogated by http://www.prostatitis.org and Reasonablelogicalman in duping sufferers into visiting a Doctor in China and pay $20k+ for the treatment of bacteria that no other Western doctors can find is horrific and should not be encouraged. They even say that this Dr can just look down a microsope and see fungus and allsorts floating around in the prostatic fluid - whilst the best in Europe and the US can't find anything. It would be funny if it wasn't scamming highly vulnerable sufferers. Silverye 09:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of DMOZ links
The DMOZ link for prostatitis has been put up. There is a disagreement between SKOPP, who supports the commercial site ChronicProstatitis.com and myself, REASONABLELOGICALMAN. According to Wiki policy when there is a link dispute, all links can be removed and the DMOZ links can be placed for a neutral point of view. To quote wikipedia: "Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the template." The link to the commercial site should be removed, but I will leave it up for now in it's diminished location to be removed later. SKOPP also makes false accusations of sock puppetry, removes edits that support "nonbacterial prostatitis" or chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) being caused by infection - as suggested by abundant published medical research, misinterprets medical data, and removes all mentions to the 501(c)3 nonprofit Prostatitis Foundation (Prostatitis.org). In short, the commercial website proposes a theory of "pelvic myoneuropathy" and deletes posts that suggest other etiologies for chronic prostatitis or chronic pelvic pain. For reference the DMOZ link is: Reasonablelogicalman 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lies and bulldust, I'm afraid!


 * 1) I do not own any website that sells to the public (ie "commercial"), unlike the site he is trying to insert (prostatitis.org, which sells his self-published monograph, inter alia).
 * 2) The phrase "pelvic myoneuropathy" is not mentioned on the page in question.
 * 3) Reasonablelogicalman's edit history clearly links him to the commercially oriented prostatitis.org site, a low quality site that was rejected on consensus
 * 4) The DMOZ links are extremely poor quality, as I outlined above, and represent a significant downgrading of the article. Reasonablelogicalman is the only editor who does not agree with the current link structure, which does not set up a situation where we have to fall back on a junky list of sites.
 * 5) Reasonablelogicalman and his puppets have attempted to add a string of links to various pages, all linking to .org websites that he owns, and all canvassing donations from people who are suffering incurable or difficult to cure conditions, showing him to be a predator of the worst possible kind. See my comments at Talk:Human_cloning. Any admin or medically trained person reading this should email me for more details, and there are a lot of them.
 *  Skopp

'
 * I would ask anyone reviewing this RFC to note that all commentators above have agreed with my take on the issues, not his. So consensus is against him. "Reasonablelogicalman" (and his various other incarnations) is alone in saying I or anyone else have slanted the article in any way. The article has been reviewed by a number of urologists and modified as they have seen fit. It is ONLY this editor, on a clear crusade to enhance his internet visibility, who objects to the content of this page. Note that he has been wrong on the science (see above) and appears unable to understand the basic concepts of this disease.  Skopp   07:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

At Prostatitis.org there is a monograph that SKOPP is talking about, which is published with all proceeds going to the 501(c)3 non-profit Prostatitis Foundation. SKOPP attempts to call the all-volunteer non-profit Prostatitis Foundation a commercial site in an attempt to defend his commercial site.Reasonablelogicalman 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Funds donated to your many charities may be used by you as a source of income, within the laws of charities. So don't pretend to be Mr Clean.  Skopp   19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that SKOPP removed the term "pelvic myoneuropathy" after it was edited out by me, because category III prostatitis has traditionally been called non-bacterial prostatitis, not pelvic myoneuropathy, just one of his many medical mistakes. This fact can be seen in the edit history and in the fact that SKOPP created a page on pelvic myoneuropathy at: This pelvic myoneuropathy WIKI page also links to the commercial website ChronicProstatitis.com under a disguised link. Please see the first external link on the Pelvic Myoneuropathy page at:
 * Pelvic Myoneuropathy - an in-depth explanation Reasonablelogicalman 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "pelvic myoneuropathy" is one agreed to as appropriate for an emerging disease by many of the top urologists in the field (emailed discussion can be seen at http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/forum ). It is not anyone's invention, but a term arrived at by consensus. In addition, this has nothing to do with your RfC, please stick to the point at hand.  Skopp   19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The commercial website ChronicProstatitis.com mentions Pelvic Myoneuropathy in it's first sentence "If you have chronic pelvic pain or have a diagnosis of prostatitis, start by reading our page on pelvic myoneuropathy to understand the latest concepts." The commercial website ChronicProstatitis.com promotes the expensive Standford Protocol of trigger point massage, as does SKOPP's version of this article here. ChronicProstatitis.com also promotes Q-UROL in it's second paragraph and declares that "Infection Ruled Out in Landmark Study." He meanwhile edits out any of the pro-infection posts here, which suggest that unusual or hard to culture microbes may be causing chronic pelvic pain or so called "non-bacterial" chronic prostatitis. Not treating infection could turn patients into chronic sufferers who would need Q-UROL and trigger point massage. There are huge bucks in these commercial enterprises. SKOPP says that he does not own a commercial website called ChronicProstatitis.com, but he has again immediately removed the neutral DMOZ link and replaced it with ChronicProstatitis.com. SKOPP claims to have a consensus here, but in fact falsely calls all opposition sock puppets and then drives all opposition away with his relentless editing and high tech webmaster and Wiki skills. I'm suspicious that his support is all sock puppets, but do not know how to check this. In any event, SKOPP threatens personal attacks, fails to disengage, fails to allow a neutral point of view, and fails to leave removed the link to his commercial website.Reasonablelogicalman 17:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you are getting waaay off topic. Admin David Ruben has gone right through the page with a fine tooth comb, Bradley, and he removed the link I prefer, to http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/forum, as well as your link (HE removed it, my friend, not me, check back on the page's history). So I think you should be content with this outcome. I'm not going to piss into the wind by challenging David, are you? the DMOZ option stinks, since it simply brings both those links back PLUS some really dreadful ones. So it's time for you to move on; haven't you got a few more self-serving "charities" to set up? <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;">  Skopp   19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The removal of http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/forum has been the worst thing to have happened to the Prostatitis wikipedia page. Very poor decision. Silverye 06:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The repeated spamming of Wikipedia with the chronicprostatitis link on this page should not be allowed. I hope one of the admins will remove these links to this commercial website. Reasonablelogicalman 16:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-Insertion of bacterial theories for non-bacterial prostatitis
I would like to see the last 10 articles on prostatitis from Medline be summarized here, but SKOPP keeps deleting any edits that suggests that many patients with chronic prostatitis might have an infection from something not looked for in the standard aerobic culture done at the doctor's office. There are organisms like Chlamydia, anaerobes, ureaplasma, and mycoplasma. The last 10 articles from Medline are referenced here         Reasonablelogicalman 21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm stunned that there are still poeple out there that think bacteria is the cause of all this. Utter stupidity.Silverye 05:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The joy of wikipedia is that a maverick with unusual theories, who has a bunch of crummy studies from a Croatian backwater or from "Family Planning Instruction Station of Leqing City" (your second study above, PMID=17725308 ), can be blocked by the majority of users who do not adhere to junk science but rather give credence to major studies, high-powered studies, from large centres, by highly trained people using large samples and the best equipment. Now I would not even allow this crap onto the page, but an admin has taken your twaddle and been kind enough to give it a mention under Possible role of unculturable bacteria in CPPS. So your edit, or what is left of it after an admin ran his crap-detector over it, is actually on the page. Was it too technically challenging for you to check the page before bleating here like a baby? And don't try to change that edit — it'll be reverted. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   01:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not my area of expertese, so would need to read up a little more about this, but eMedicine article (last updated in Sept'07) tends to agree that some cases of chronic prostatitis may be bacterial in origin - see - and notes that: Pontari and Ruggieri conclude that "To what degree these factors interact in a given patient and to what degree there is a common pathway or several pathways that lead to the end point of pelvic pain remains to be determined." Clearly, the final answer (or answers) is not yet determined. Opportunities abound for clinical and basic science research in this area..
 * So aside what anyone might personally think, can we discuss what the reliable sources state (even if we might disagree), as the article must be based on those (even if they are outdated or likely to be wrong - remember WP:NPOV is about belief in real world, not factually correct "truth" of WP:SPOV). Above editors clearly more familiar with material - can you not agree to disagree, and then work collaboratively ? Else I'll try and summarise the WP:RS as per eMedicine, DiseaseDatabase, and PubMed list of the last couple years...:
 * Finally, as per header this thread - no need last 10 studies summarised in an article. Either a particularly notable study helps support a notable fact or it does not. If all of the last 10 studies were on the same aspect, then the article would only need cite one or two. Wikipedia is not an abstract listings - that is what PubMed or the like are for. David Ruben Talk 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll happily discuss each and every study cited on the page you reference at EMedicine and show why they do not coutervail here, whether it be because of a lack of controls (an excellent study cited on the WP page shows that controls actually have more traces of bacteria via PCR), or (with E coli) looking at a different patient population, or an ignorance of other studies in the field (they see muscle spasm as necessarily secondary, an a priori assumption that is probably incorrect), whatever, I'm more than happy to debate this. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;">  Skopp   13:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what's annoying, David, is that the EMed article quotes the Pontari and Ruggieri study somewhat out of context. The actual conclusion to the Pontari study is that The symptoms of CP/CPPS appear to result from an interplay between psychological factors and dysfunction in the immune, neurological and endocrine systems. They do not mention infection at all, merely that the role of the immune system in responding to normal flora has been "reconsidered" (this said at the end of all other possibilities). And yet the urologist writing that page, seemingly unwilling to give up old ideas, as is so common amongst uros, misuse the study to support a continuation of the infection nonsense.<span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   13:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, but yes to the last comment) Fine, but to be valid for the article, it must of course be a cited opinion from a reliable third party, and not our own assessement/critique of any individual paper (another article's misquote is justification of course for using the the primary source). So sadly if a paper is "obviously flawed" but no textbook/journal subsequently rips it to shreds, then the "reliable source" of the paper must stand as per WP:Cite & WP:Verify, however "wrong" that is :-) Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, must lag behind developing knowledge... so as a quick single step, are there any good recent review papers we can look at (rather than having to try and find commentary on each research paper) (remember WP generally prefers secondary sources to primary - although WP:MEDMOS does allow for primary research studies) ? David Ruben Talk 13:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are, give me a few days ... <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   13:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am loathe to get involved in this argument that is generating more heat than light, but you might look at Potts J., Payne RE., Cleve Clin J Med. 2007 May;74 Suppl 3:S63-71, "Prostatitis: Infection, neuromuscular disorder, or pain syndrome? Proper patient classification is key". It's considered and from respected sources. There is also Guercini F., Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2007 Jun;79(2):76-83, "Chronic prostatitis (CP)/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS): what do we know?", but I confess I am not familiar with the author, nor is that a journal I have ever read to be aware of its esteem. Jfbcubed 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd endorse the Potts study wholeheartedly, but not the Guercini study. Guercini is an Italian urologist with very unusual views on prostatitis and a website pushing his very own "explode the prostatic stones" gimmick. My list of resources for an overview is here. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

External link to geocities/myoneuropathy pelvic floor pictures
Before any possible return to edit warring between Skoppensboer & Reasonablelogicalman over the external link to http://www.geocities.com/myoneuropathy/ "Diagrams of the Pelvic Floor Muscles" 1 & 2, lets discuss the link:
 * Does it provide a greater amount of information than that which the article itself should have if it were at Featured article status (ie as per WP:External links) ?
 * Even, accepting were greater amount of information, I am slightly unclear what images of pelvic floor muscles (very nice illustrations though they are) have to do with Prostatitis (the article already has a couple of pictures up in the infobox) ? Are more images needed - or was it that the illustrations also show some of the paths of the local nerves, if then why not provide a link to the wikipedial article Pudendal nerve, as that in turn already has some further images of this anatomical area?
 * Are there other issues about the geocities site that is problematic (eg recommendation to www.chronicprostatitis.com) the issue ? David Ruben Talk 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The raison d'être of providing that link is that:


 * 1) The various muscles of the pelvic floor are intimately concerned with CPPS. To understand this, you could call CPPS researcher Dr Rodney Anderson of Stanford or read this interview with him.
 * 2) The diagrams dissect out extremely clearly the various pelvic floor muscles in a way I have not found anywhere else on the internet.
 * 3) Men trying to understand the latest research from Stanford and other centres that shows these muscles and their main innervation to be key in the etiology of CPPS are able to see in the clearest possible way how these muscles are structured, how they are layered, and where the insertions points occur. This aids in self-treatment, which is necessary at this stage since therapists properly trained in intra-rectal trigger point massage are like hens' teeth.
 * 4) The website has several other pages that link to published papers that are unobtainable elsewhere and in toto provide another unique resource for sufferers of this condition.
 * 5) There are no pages on wikipedia that provide this tailored agglomeration of data to patients.
 * 6) There is no way to include this data on wikipedia's Prostatitis page.
 * 7) The editor who created the linked site clearly feels that www.chronicprostatitis.com is a useful resource and he/she links to it. I have no problem with this; in fact I concur. The existence of this link on that page cannot possibly used as a reason to exclude the site itself as an EL. In fact, I have never seen a site excluded from EL on the basis of subsidiary links on the linked site, unless those links are to racial hatred sites.

Furthermore, the editor reasonablelogicalman has attempted to consensus stack through meat puppetry at his website today, see here. This is against the spirit of wikipedia and should be strongly discouraged. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   04:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The main purpose of the link appears to be to promote the commercial website www.chronicprostatitis.com. The first paragraph of that page shows two links to the commercial website. Then each picture is covered with "chronicprostatitis.com." The top, right side, and bottom of the page are filled with ads. I believe, the direct link to this commercial site was already removed by Dr. Ruben. Now an attempt is being made to sneak around him. The site may also violate copyright laws as the pictures may be copyrighted medical pictures. If these pictures are copyright free images they could be attributed and incorporated into the main wiki page without links to the commercial website. Although as Dr. Ruben noted, the pictures of muscles are probably not essential to the prostatitis page, or links could be made to existing Wiki pages on anatomy. Reasonablelogicalman 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that the site has links to another website is outside the scope of criteria for rejection of external links, unless the site is used purely to promote another website. Granted, there is promotion, but there is also a great deal of information across several pages. On balance, the site offers enough unique information to be a worthwhile link, whereas your only reason for excluding it is vindictive, as your narrowly-focused edit history shows.
 * Ads, in themselves, are not sufficient criteria for removal from EL, unless they overwhelm the page. In this case, they do not.
 * No attempt was made to "sneak around" anyone, and I resent your assumption of a lack of good faith. The link existed long before David supported the removal of the link to www.chronicprostatitis.com. Please withdraw that comment, or strike it.
 * The pictures are not copyrighted, according to my search of Google Images. The pictures are stamped with chronicprostatitis.com, but since the site links to this watermarked site, I highly doubt the images were stolen, and are almost certainly there with permission.
 * You have not invalidated the points I made above as to the usefulness of the link. It is useful and very helpful and informative, so it fits with the "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual)" requirement.
 * Now, please apologise for trying to recruit meat puppets to this page to insert your link, and apologise for accusing me of "sneaking around" an admin. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the first 2 diagrams on http://www.geocities.com/myoneuropathy/ to be especially invaluable to my understanding of this condition - shame to take that chance of understanding away from others by removing the link. Silverye 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Very simply, spam.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A comment from someone who, very simply, has never suffered chronic pelvic pain! You need to ask patients if this page is helpful, not the general readership of WP, who wouldn't have a clue. The simple fact is that the latest studies point to ¾ of men getting cured or greatly improved by manipulation of these very muscles (see citations below), and there is nowhere on the Internet to see these muscles diagrammed and described in the same way as at the site in question. I will support replacement of the link if another such site can be found. It needs to have equally clear diagrams and instructions, and be as focused on this patient population. Now, any takers? If the logos on the images are the problem, I shall try to contact the site owner and see if that can be changed to make it less obtrusive, or eliminated.




 * <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Errm wikipedia is for "the general readership of WP" and WP:NOT a resource just for patients. That aside, does the article need to be more explicit in why knowledge of the muscles is relevant, which at least then might help clarify why the link is needed ? The catch though is that wikipedia of course is not a "how to guide", so the specifics of the techniques should not be covered, but a very brief outline of approach/aims might be useful. Also then the link might be better as a footnote (ie expanding on a single point), rather than as an external link (as the pictures, however pretty, don't in themselves explain about Prostatis as a whole). Your suggestion to see if the logos embossed across the images can be removed would certainly be an improvement :-) Likewise would be a toning down in the double recomendation to jump to chronicprostatitis.com (a comment at bottom of "For further information, see..." would, I think, both be not unreasonable approach for an external site to take, but also then be less susceptable to accusations of appearing as solely an adfarm-spam webpage - Orangemarlin has been around for 3 years and comment above was on the apparent nature of the link, not on whether any useful information also present or not). So yes, can you see if some of the concerns can be addressed :-) David Ruben Talk 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what I can do. I don't see an email address there but I'll write to the URL suffix @geotcities.com and see if that works. Addressing some of your other points:
 * the page is question is not a how-to guide — more like a where-to :-)
 * I shall add text to the page to make it clear how this relates to the issue, and I may take up your suggestion of moving the link into the text at the appropriate point as a footnote
 * I am going to discuss the removal of commercial (i.e. product based) advertising from chronicprostatitis.com with that site's management, so that the link can be put back in the EL section
 * Update: I have made contact with the geocities site owner, and this person has agreed to modify the page to remove advertisements, state copyright or ownership status to the images, and only insert relevant and specific links to chronicprostatitis.com, not general links. I would wait a week or two and see how this works out. I have also suggested a complete removal of advertisements from chronicprostatitis.com to the webmaster there, and if that is done, I cannot see why that site too cannot be included in the links section. I would also agree to the inclusion of prostatitis.org if they remove all advertisements and update their website extensively, so that the pages reflect a fair picture of the current research situation — not overweighting the personal views and research interests of the webmaster Reasonablelogicalman (this includes removing the advertisement for the sale of the monograph by Reasonablelogicalman that claims urologists are too lazy to properly test EPS and that men should suspect they have infections even when urologists tell them they do not have infections) — and removes the site's forum, where patients are now being encouraged by the webmaster-appointed moderators to attend clinics in China run by people who have not published anything, and where up to and beyond USD20K is charged for up to 30-40 intraprostatic injections with unknown drugs using a protocol not used anywhere else. Note to Reasonablelogicalman: you and your moderators could be open to legal action if patients are harmed at this clinic because of the proselytizing you encourage, and I already know of several disgruntled ex-patients from that clinic. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;">  Skopp   06:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To quote OrangeMarlin, a long-time Wiki contributor, the link to the commerical website is ":Very simply, spam.  Orange Marlin  Talk•" Wikipedia rules are very clear on SPAM and on copyright: "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception. 1.	Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked.... Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." The link in question takes copyrighted medical pictures and places a spam billboard over them, and also has direct text links to a commercial website known for spamming and flaming as can be seen by searching sci.med.prostate.prostatitis. ReasonableLogicalMan 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please state which images violate copyright. At this stage you are making an unsubstantiated accusation. Those images may be out of copyright, for all you know, or could be original art by the site owner. And the emblazoning of a URL across the images could be to discourage image theft and re-use or hotlinking. You continual lack of good faith in these issues is disconcerting. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another SPAM LINK has been put up by www.ChronicProstatitis.com. See:Prostatitis — The Sex Destroyer This article links to www.ChronicProstatitis.com on the last page. This article was an interview of the webmaster of www.ChronicProstatitis.com. It's largely about his views and his own personal history and the exact same views posted on this page, which are in contention. It is another attempt to get around the ban of www.ChronicProstatitis.com from the external links as previously done by an administrator. About the other link in contention because of Copyright and SPAM Wikipedia says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." ReasonableLogicalMan 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me! I suspect you have a problem that goes waaay beyond the editing of this page. The link I put up was a link I thought would enjoy bipartisan support. It references both websites, prostatitis.org and chronicprostatitis.com. It's a balanced look at the situation. It is also linked from your own site prostatitis.org on this page under the text: "Here's the online link to a story about prostatitis. :You can buy Best Life Magazine which contains the article at many news stands " Really, you are being ridiculous now! The article you are naming as SPAM contains an interview with your father, titular head of the Prostatitis Foundation, on the second page, and a link to your website too! Your lack of good faith makes you impossible to placate or satisfy! Although my status in relation to cp.com was discussed extensively in the archives, and to which I have referred you before, you continue to name me as the webmaster — more bad faith that is becoming intolerable. The article has nothing to do with my views, or my history, and has nothing to do with getting around anything DR has done. I appeal to DR to carefully judge the way Reasonablelogicalman has reacted to my inclusion of a link to the most comprehensive article to be published in the popular literature in 10 years. Prostatitis is rarely covered in the Press. This article, by prostatitis sufferer and journalist Steve Rae, was the biggest and best thing we have seen in at least a decade, and just look how Reasonablelogicalman reacts (hint: he has obviously never read it, just scanned it for "chronicprostatitis.com"). Are these the actions of a normal editor, or someone intent on personal attack above all else? Notice too how he says it is "another attempt to get around a ban" despite the fact that I have pointed out several times to him that the link to the muscle diagram page has been there for over a year. David, I simply do not know how else to deal with this editor but ignore him and revert him, because he seems unable to understand basic editing concepts, lacks any good faith, misinterprets almost everything that is said, including what you say (witness the ridiculous interchange about the supplying of papers from each of us below, which clearly asks for both of us to submit papers), and so on. Reasonablelogicalman seems to have a severe reading comprehension problem, or perhaps some other intellectual problem that is preventing him from understanding basic human communication. He viciously and perpetually attacks me as someone I am not and now for adding a link he himself has approved for his own website! I mean ... I am just at a loss for words here. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;">  Skopp   22:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The direct link to www.ChronicProstatitis.com was banned by an admin.
 * 2) Any attempt to remove a link that consists of apparently copyrighted medical pictures defaced by billboard ads to www.ChronicProstatitis.com is reverted. Wiki says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
 * 3) Suddenly a third link appears which just happens to reflect all the views of www.ChronicProstatitis.com, a commercial website, and also links to www.ChronicProstatitis.com.
 * 4) Spam is spam. Endless attempts are being made to justify it. The self-promotion is obvious. ReasonableLogicalMan 02:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * DR, please forgive me for not responding to this rubbish. I'll leave it to you. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   02:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent refactoring of talk page
User:Davidruben deleted some threads. Diffs: (whilst many points that need to be considered, such awful personal attacks can not be tolerated - offer appology, take a break and the return for civil discussion. Thread deleted.) and (delete per [[WP:NPA]) ]. Avb 09:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While I fully agree with the deletion, I would phrase the advice to Skopp slightly differently: (1) advice to apologize (2) request to reinsert comments after removing personal attacks, incivility and other inappropriate opinion. Thanks. Avb 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Avb, agree with your above suggestion, there were indeed several carefully considered issues within that deleted thread. Further reverting-warring between Reasonablelogicalman & Skoppensboer is becoming disruptive, and even more so if Skoppensboer is correct about use of anon sockpuppetry by Reasonablelogicalman. Both editors need stop the slow-reverting each other over this. David Ruben Talk 11:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll dredge the data, sanitized, from the diffs if the opposing editor continues with this issue. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Dr. Ruben, you say, "can you not agree to disagree, and then work collaboratively ? Else I'll try and summarise the WP:RS as per eMedicine, DiseaseDatabase, and PubMed list of the last couple years...:" Yes, please do summarize the research of the last several years, looking at all the etiologies of prostatitis and chronic prostatitis and all the treatment regimens in the peer-reviewed medical literature. That's what I was trying to do when I was subjected to all the personal attacks. Thank you. ReasonableLogicalMan 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman (talk • contribs)


 * And in doing so, David, please take into account only those papers by major researchers, with decent sample sizes, published in the top-tier peer-reviewed Western journals, not papers put out by single individuals with no urological training, or papers published in low-qual "journals" not indexed by Medline, or relating to other conditions (like BPH, see ref #6 in section above, authored by Reasonablelogicalman himself, which is a truly "sneaky" way of trying to get your own work onto this page!), or emanating from "Family Planning Instruction Station of Leqing City" (ref #2 above), or written by Croatians who do not even know the modern nomenclature used to classify prostatitis types (ref #1 and #4 above). Once again, I point you to the list of major studies I compiled here. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll have a go (whilst I'm glad you both seemed to have agreed to this approach, better would have been if you could have worked together on this). Let me have a chance to browse the full eMedicine articles and recent PubMed hits for this. Before I start this, I'ld point out that best sources as per WP:RS are considered to be secondary sources, although for medical articles primary sources have their role too - see WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources for fuller discussion. Other policies and guidelines here are WP:NPOV, Fringe theories, WP:Cite & WP:Verify. As it is not wikipedia's role (either in article or by its editors) to judge the value of a paper (for that would be prohibited original research), dismissal of a bulk (hence not a single trivial minority) of papers would require comparison to accepted majority (as established by a good secondary source). So if, since the last secondary review was published that suggests X, there have been a large number of papers suggestive of Y, then Y deserves to be mentioned at least to some extent (as per WP:NPOV). Of course later papers restating that the majority view point remains unchanged as X, would make Y a minority (possibly still a trivial minority). What I am therefore reminding everyone is that wikipedia lags behind the real-world as it only reports on views (as per NPOV) after they have been confirmed and which wikipedia can then retrospectively cite to verify with. So let me have a look at the abstract of papers I can find and review papers already listed in the article. Finally I would be grateful if you could help me out by letting me have a list of which papers you have encountered that seem to support the various points & views (use the email link from my userpage), giving as fully-cited references as possible and PubMed PMID abstract numbers are definitely appreciated :-) For now, though, I would ask that you kindly not revert the article eitherway, however much it is "The Wrong Version"; else I shall just be totally confused :-) David Ruben Talk 12:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this effort, David. I and the other men who have or had suffered from this disorder appreciate it. I have sent my list of papers to your talk21 address. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

David, with respect, I thank you for your work here, but I think it is inappropriate when there is a dispute between editors on a medically related website to accept articles from only one party. You are capable of going to MEDLINEyourself and summarizing ALL the articles there, instead of being biased by receiving selected ones from one editor. SKOPP is not a doctor. His view is not more important that those of the peer-reviewed medical literature, done by medical doctors and editors who have already screened all the articles on Medline. You can read SKOPPs views here, HIS VIEWS ARE ALL THAT ARE HERE, but basically he believes chronic prostatitis/CPPS III is caused by "stress." His views are more complicated than that of course, and anyone can read them here. I welcome his views when properly referenced and have not edited any of his out. The only thing I think I have ever removed over and over is the SPAM links. SKOPP claims that I believe that chronic prostatitis is caused by infection. That is false. That is a STRAW MAN argument. My view is that chronic prostatitis/CPPS is multifactoral, and I would love to actually be able to post my views with appropriate references. The literature supports that chronic prostatitis/CPPS III is caused by, or mimicked by, infection, chlamydia, nanobacteria, aerobes, anaerobes, corynebacteria, unculturable bacteria, obstruction and infection with normal flora, obstruction of acini, reflux of urine, reflux of semen, reflux of seminal fluid, reflux of prostatic fluid, lack of sex, too much sex, interruption during sex, immune dysfunction, auto-immune disease, neurologic disorders, stricture, hypospadis, urethral stenosis, hernia, kidney stones, urethral stricture, urethral stenosis, catherization, transurethral surgery, benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate cancer, and even allergy. We should be able to post the pros and cons of all possible etiologies on the prostatitis page that have general acceptance or are being researched. I am asking other editors to weigh in, as I understand I am allowed and encouraged to do so according to Wikipedia help. But I also welcome and wait to see your UNBIASED review of all the medical literature on MEDLINE, not just that selectively sent to you from one editor. ReasonableLogicalMan 18:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry Reasonablelogicalman, invite was to both of you following your reactivating the suggestion. Perhaps I should have made that more explicitly clear, but you both had posted acceptences for this approach and I was responding to that, rather than just to the single preceeding comment :-) Anyway, I'll see how much stuff you try and load my home email inbox with and I'll have a start at reviewing over the weekend (if it looks like being a very long task, then I might give progress reports here, just to let you know where I'm at. As per above points, I will try and start with any journal secondary sources first, ie reviewing articles to try and get the overall scope of any changing views).David Ruben Talk 20:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you also. I am a relative newbie and I do not know how to load your home email inbox. Please explain how to do that. I see no link to your email. Also, I am not sure how having editors load your email inbox is less biased than you simply going to Medline and searching on prostatitis. I am in favor your doing your own unbiased and original searches on prostatitis, and for now will not be loading your inbox. I have also been asking for help on Talk pages that may be related to prostatitis in one way or another. I invite SKOPP to do the same. Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia works by building consensus..... The primary method of determining consensus is discussion...." So, I felt free to do ask for help elsewhere. There used to be a fairly large group of prostatitis researchers and clinicians on sci.med.prostate.prostatitis, but they were driven out by relentless SPAMMING and FLAMING by www.ChronicProstatitis.com. Please research that also. ReasonableLogicalMan 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman (talk • contribs)

David. By definition Chronic Prostatitis/CPPS IIIA is an inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. A large study done by the NIH and summarized by the Centers for Disease Control found that approximately 50% of men with chronic prostatitis/CPPS type III have urethral leukocytosis. So all in all, over 50% of men with chronic prostatitis have leukocytosis of the prostate or urethra. I hope that you will comment on chronic prostatitis as often being an "inflammatory disease of unknown etiology." And will you look at the research being done on those purulent samples. ReasonableLogicalMan 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman (talk • contribs)


 * Just to clarify a few points:
 * 1) "I would love to actually be able to post my views with appropriate references" Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your theories, see WP:SOAP.
 * 2) If the literature supports the long list of unusual aetiological factors you name (hint: it doesn't), provide DR with the PMIDs. If that is too much work for you, as your protestations above seem to indicate ("I will not be loading your inbox"), then please vacate the field for more energetic and engaged editors. DR has been very kind to give any of his time to assess this data, and the least you could do is respond accordingly.
 * 3) Research has clarified that while WBCs are often (but not always) found in EPS, the vast majority of Cat III sufferers have no histological inflammation via biopsy (at least two excellent studies support this). The latest evidence can be seen here, 27 October 2007 news, where it is shown that histological inflammation is not related to chronic prostatitis symptoms.
 * 4) The newsgroup sci.med.prostate.prostatitis that you keep referring us to — I have had a look at it today via Google, and it seems to be awash with spam typical of unmoderated newsgroups. I found no references in the spam to the website that is the object of your vendetta. It also is marked as a low activity newsgroup, with very few readers, according to Google, so it is of no interest to me or the WP Prostatitis page.
 * 5) One more point. This, this, and this is not how you behave as an editor of wikipedia. It's tantamount to saying you are out of your depth here. Moreover, calling for editors with a particular slant (STD specialists) is consensus stacking, again. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

David, SKOPP says,
 * 1) "Research has clarified that while WBCs are often ... found in EPS, the vast majority of Cat III sufferers have no histological inflammation via biopsy (at least two excellent studies support this)." I agree, that inflammation often exists in the expressed prostatic fluid (EPS) or as I noted from the NIH study, about 50% of the time in the urethra. It is one of the mysteries of chronic prostatitis where the WBCs in the expressed prostatic secretions come from, because in a few studies prostatic fluid inflammation and biopsies have not correlated. Biopsies which harvest less than 1% of the prostate may well be negative as physicians do not yet know which part of the prostate to biopsy and do not for example, biopsy too close to the peri-urethral area, to avoid urethral damage. Yet on cystoscopy the prostatic urethra is often inflamed in prostatitis patients.
 * 2) "....it is shown that histological inflammation is not related to chronic prostatitis symptoms." I have never said that inflammation and symptoms are related. I have suggested that inflammation and etiology may be related. A big difference. As a physician, you know that two patients can have appendicitis and one have a normal white blood cell (WBC) count, and the other a high WBC count, yet have similar symptoms. Inflammation is sometimes a better guide to etiology than to symptoms.
 * 3) SKOPP has successfully run all other parties off this page. Attempts to draw any others to this discussion are squashed. Why can't we get some inflammation experts, microbiologists, immunologists, infectious disease experts, family practitioners, urologists, internists, pathologists, and other experts in here for discussion? SKOPP runs a dictatorship here. Wikipedia is supposed to bring people together for discussion. ReasonableLogicalMan 02:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll let DR deal with your unending personal attacks and name-calling. I would welcome the participation of the abovementioned experts, since the best of them are on the same page as me, as the quality post-2000 research literature shows. The mystery is why a retired GP like yourself, a non-sufferer to boot, feels the need to name-call over this issue, and build a career with a vast network of linked sites, one of which deals (poorly) with this topic. As far as inflammation goes, inflammation can result from many triggers, not only infection. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not participated in "unending personal attacks or name-calling." That is your area of expertise as this discussion shows. You have been warned by the admin to "Stop personal attacks." Since you welcome experts from other fields I will invite them again, so this time please do not revert my edits which invite them. I will first to go pathology to invite people. We need a section on the pathology of prostatitis. ReasonableLogicalMan 13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman (talk • contribs)


 * What I don't understand Reasonablelogicalman is, that since you welcome open discussion and debate on the causes and treatment of CPPS/Chronic non-bacterial prostatitis, that on your sites forum your chosen moderators delete and edit posts that offer up any other treatment options aside paying $20k+ to visit a specific Doctor in China? It's all very fishy. Silverye 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Assumes I own the site mentioned. Which I don't. If you are referring to the 501(c)3 non-profit Prostatitis Foundation's website, Prostatitis.org, run by a board of directors and all volunteers, where there is a support forum, then the site is very much within it's rights to keep deleting the constant spamming and flaming from www.ChronicProstatitis.com, which is the same entity that destroyed sci.med.prostate.prostatitis with it's constant spamming and flaming. Is Silvereye a SOCK PUPPET for SKOPP? Sock puppets were used by www.ChronicProstatitis.com to spam and flame sci.med.prostate.prostatitis from a high activity group into almost nonexistance. ChronicProstatitis.com has also spammed the links here. I welcome open debate and discussion right here on Wikipedia which is what editors are supposed to focus on. ReasonableLogicalMan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reasonablelogicalman, please take note of what is written at the top of this page. It says there, inter alia, that:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prostatitis article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
 * Therefore, this is NOT a page for launching off-topic, repetitive attacks. I shall start reverting your Talk page contributions (as per "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article") if you do not adhere to this rule because you are breaking this rule and cluttering up the page with nonsense. Also:
 * I did not revert your edits all over wikipedia asking for assistance. Apologize for this accusation.
 * Silverye is not a sockpuppet.
 * You do not know how to edit wikipedia properly. Go to "Help" and start learning, or face edit reversions. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. . There is probably enough bad comments and lack of WP:AGF with everyone accusing everyone else to have blocks immediately imposed (yes one may internally strongly disagree with the viewpoint of another editor but that is as far as it should go, arguing out here in wikipedia is unhelpful and demeans everyone - whether rightly or wrongly). Given I've offered to have a look at the published material and offer my $0.02 of opinion on content, I should probably exuse myself from taking admin action within this article, and so I have asked for opinions from other admins re both claims of sockpuppetry. David Ruben Talk 03:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I find this whole debate dishearting. I've suffered from CPPS for years - so whilst I'm not a Doctor, I do understand the damage this condition can do to lives and how important the correct treatment is. People take their lives over the pain this disease causes and that should never be forgotten. Visitors to Wikipedia need the most up-to-date and relevent information on treating this disorder and the reason why I'm dismayed at the http://www.chronicprostatitis.com link having been removed as that seems to offer the most balanced view and information on this condition. I've got friends (fellow sufferers who became friends) who followed the 'must be an infection there somewhere' route and that just led to further pain, suffering, depression and cost. They are now making significant progress following the Stanford Protocol of relaxation and triggerpoint work. They did not go to Stanford for treatment - the protocol is for home treatment and costs nothing. Can I make one final comment about the accusations of http://www.chronicprostatitis.com being a commercial site. I see only a couple adverts for clininally proven products that help sufferers. Hardly a blatent commerical site and I'd be stunned if that even goes part way to covering the hosting costs. With regards to the 'sock puppet' accusations - I'd welcome any investigation into that claim and actively ask the Admins to do that. Silverye 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I note (following Reasonablelogicalman's suggestion of sockpuppetry against him) that Silverye has been indefinitely blocked "as a Single Purpose Account (SPA) and ... likely sockpuppet" of Skoppensboer, who has been warned.
 * Likewise (following Skoppensboer accusation of sockpuppetry by Reasonablelogicalman) the actions of an anon IP to further their part of editing dispute on 31st Oct & 2nd November have been felt to be "a clear case ... IP is clearly the same user as the account in question".
 * Any further personal attacks, lack of good faith or sockpuppetry would I'm sure result in editors being blocked. David Ruben Talk 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere on other user talk pages, I vehemently deny that user Silverye is my sockpuppet and I hope he takes this up with the relevant admin to get the block overturned. I also thank him for his support on this page. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps; border: 2px dotted #FF0000;background-color:#009900;"> Skopp   23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to note that the block of Silverye has been reverted (re both concerns of ?sockpuppetry & ?SPA) by original admin following evidence provided, see User talk:Silverye. David Ruben Talk 13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)