User talk:MastCell/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Deleted reSIProcate page

I suppose this probably isn't the best of timing, but I'll leave a note anyhow. I would like to have the page for the reSIProcate project restored. (Of course, I am willing to address the concerns that initially led to its deletion, and have a good-faith case for the project's notability.)

--Docfaraday 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

SHS Article

Please do remove my comments from the SHS talk page again, as I was not in violation of these guidelines: [SNIP] You may feel that what I contributed did not add to the article (I'm just guessing because you didn't include much in your edit summary). However, I disagree; pointing others to a reliable publication which includes some very good information is fully relevant.

Thank you Thedukeofno 12:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your post violated the basis of the talk page guidelines, which is that article talk pages are to be used to coordinate improvement of the article, not as a discussion forum. The article talk page is not a soapbox; your post attempts to employ it as one. If you want to discuss specifically how and whether the source you mention should be incorporated into the article, then please feel free. But there is already way too much misuse of that talk page for argumentation and general debate as opposed to its intended purposes. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Overdue award

I know that ousting of Naacats was a community decision, but it was your meticulous notification that got the ball rolling fer sure. I thought of giving this right after the ban was realized, but then forgot about it. Better late than never, though!

Peter ^Isotalo 12:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[Barnstar moved to user page] Thanks! MastCell ^Talk 15:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence

You cannot believe what User:B is writing. If you're not watching this situation, your assistance would be helpful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really want to get involved there, but I'll take a look. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Chan Sau Chung Article

Hello MastCell I have been previously working on an the Chan Sau Chung article with MArcane and recently added some more information. It has since been tagged by Mista-X as being almost like a Resume etc and while there may be great value in what he says, he does not appear willing to assist or even discuss anything on the Talk pages. This is not a complaint against Mista-X I am just seeking assistance in cleaning the article up. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated as I am still trying to get accustomed to the wiki rules. If you wish you may take a look at his talk page to see what I wrote. By the way, why are some editors so offensive? One gets the distinct impression that this wiki is their own personal 'playground' and that they are bending over backwards and doing the rest of us a very big favour by allowing us to contribute. I am sure this is not how it was meant to be. - Debon 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanx MastCell you've been very helpful. Actually for quite a while I thought that the person in question was himself an administrator based on the tone of some of his comments and his general demeaner on the wikipedia. Tnax again. - Debon 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wessely issues / AN/I

Hey, someone had to, and you've taken enough crap over it already. Neil ☎ 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Plastic pressure pipe

Hi why did you revert my edit on plastic pressure pipe? PVC alone is incorrect. I simply changed it to the correct acronym PVCu. --Arsenalrchamps 07:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I also changed them to be consistent, which they are not now. --Arsenalrchamps 07:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this block

I believe that User:Imbrella is a sockpuppet of User:Yqbd or User:Raspor (although I'm convinced they're one in the same). Imbrella's first edits were on my user page with a trollish comment on October 7 2007. Yqbd's last edits were on October 6 (although he had been blocked on August 12). Yqbd edited in a similar manner and on similar articles. Since Imbrella is indefinitely blocked, it's not worth the trouble of a sockpuppetry charge, but just in case you need the data. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that once it becomes obvious an editor's here solely to abuse article talk pages we should be a little quicker on the draw. It was obvious with Imbrella practically from the first edit you mention that they weren't here to build the encyclopedia, but it fell off my radar until recently. Anyhow, wouldn't surprise me if they were the same - Imbrella had a very socky odor - but probably moot, as you mentioned. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Socky odor." You owe me a new keyboard, as I snorted Diet Pepsi all over it. And it was one of those nice Bluetooth Apple keyboards. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe him, MastCell. Diet Pepsi is no problem. Especially not with Apple keyboards (ask John Sculley). Avb 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated - thanks, that takes care of things. WLU 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Michels for ABC

I have the PDF of the Michels study, would you like me to e-mail you a copy? I am planning on creating a sub-section for it soon... undecided if it would go above or below Melbye. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I have online access to Arch Int Med through my employer so it's not necessary. I'll take a look but I'm sure you'll work it in appropriately. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgiy Starostin

Hi Mastcell -- long time no see -- I remember your perceptive observations at a recent RfC regarding, I think, Barrett v. Rosenthal and related pseudoscience things.

I noticed that you were the admin who deleted[1] Georgiy Starostin. I recently re-created it, adding sources that I think addressed the central issue, WP:PROF (cf. the earlier deletion discussion). Would you mind having a look at the article and see if you agree?

The sources that I found show that the subject is collaborating on a major project at the Santa Fe Institute, and there is a USA Today article where he is interviewed about the same. Nonetheless, one editor there (User:Mdd) seems to disagree still, I suspect because he may not be quite clear on English WP policy. More at Talk:Georgiy Starostin.

Thank you! Jim Butler^(talk) 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, seems to have all calmed down, and at the moment there is general agreement on notability; but of course please feel free to have a look. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine... it was a bit borderline to start with (WP:PROF is among our more nebulous notability guidelines), but the AfD looked like a delete without prejudice to recreation. Since it looks like there are more and better sources now, it should be fine. If anyone feels particularly strongly that it's still not notable, I suppose it could go to WP:DRV, but I don't think that's necessary. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review my blocks on a sockpuppet issue

Can you please review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Second pair of eyes please..., Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie, and my blocks. It was obvious to me that everyone mentioned at WP:AN who admitted to being a sock puppet/puppeteer needed a block, but I'm uncertain what to do about the L-m possibile relationship and whether the block on the puppeteer I gave was correct. Since you closed the SSP case, I think you would be a good admin to review. Thanks. GRBerry 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:AN. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi GTO

I just wanted to let you know that we are experiencing the same issues with the anon changing the pic order now that the protection you applied has expired. I was hoping that you could reapply the protection or give us some advice as to how we should handle this situation. Thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like extending the semi-protection is the way to go here. I've re-semi'd it for another month. Thanks for keeping an eye on it - if the problems recur again and 1 month is not long enough to discourage this particular vandal, then we can work from there. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appriciate it. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC endorsement

I would ask you to reconsider your endorsement against me. Whig 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the volume and unanimity of feedback you've received from the community at the RfC, I would ask you to reconsider your overall approach here. MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Scunny Bunny

Hi, I can't see the Articles for deletion discussion regarding this deletion. Could you point me in the direction of it? Da-rb 19:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, rather than through AfD. Another editor tagged the article for proposed deletion; there were no objections in a 5-day period, so I deleted the article as a housekeeping task. If you feel the article was in fact notable and inappropriately deleted, then I can restore it and send it to a formal AfD. Just let me know. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Llap Gogh

Would you mind restoring this article and sending it through a formal deletion? I completely disagree on its real world notability. Monty Python has tens of millions of fans throughout the world, and this is one of their more famous non-television sketches (for lack of a better term). Stephen Aquila 14:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore it at your request, though given the absence of sources vouching for the notability of this particular Monty Python-associated phrase, I'm going to go ahead and send it to AfD. MastCell ^Talk 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I've made no more than bald assertions at this stage, after all. I'll start researching for the AfD process immediately. Stephen Aquila 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion - Decyfer Down

Hi. Dumb question for you. I made an edit to a page on a Christian Rock band, and then next day you deleted them as non-notable.

Now, I'm not a christian rock music fan, or even a christian, but I looked up their article because - get this - I was researching how a radio station in another state boosted their signal and it interfered with another station in our town. The FM radio ID tag showed "decyfer" on the broadcast tag. While looking up trying to figure out where the station came from, i used that bit of info to verify that it was a christian rock station, as I found the article for Decyfer Down.

I then edited their page (not logged in) to remove a point they had on about "HEY DOODS OUR NEXT ALBUM COMES OUT ETC ETC", and put a notice for the author to put that on their own web page.

So, while I certainly am not their target audience or fans of their wikipedia edits, I would say if they're played on national FM commercial radio, have several albums, got a Sony contract it appears, etc., they're at least notable. There's enough artists who have wikipedia articles just for existing. Why bother to delete them?

Hell, I'm the last to defend a christian rock band, but if ever inane mediocre author and artist gets a wikipedia page and people don't delete em, why did you instantly remove these guys, without even a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniwha (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my feelings about Christian rock - I don't really have any one way or the other. The article was tagged by another editor for speedy deletion as it failed to assert notability according to the criteria found at WP:BAND. I looked again at the deleted article and don't see where it asserts notability. If there's independent coverage indicating that the band is in rotation on a national radio station or has toured nationally, then that would be enough to recreate the article, but as it stood it was basically a promotional page with no assertion nor evidence of notability and no sourcing outside the band's official and MySpace pages. MastCell ^Talk 06:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't give a dang about Christian rock either, but doesn't "broadcast on national station, has a Sony contract, #1 single in its market" count as notable? Here's a link to a thing on 'em from a Christan Radio webpage: http://www.ccmmagazine.com/news/headlines/11553549/archive5/

Even better, this link shows they had at least one #1 single on the Christian rock radio charts, and toured nationally: http://www.cmcentral.com/news/5896.html

Like I said, I'm not even a fan of them, but having fought for notability fights on bands I *like*, I feel I should argue this one as well. Taniwha 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. I restored the article: Decyfer Down, and reworked the article to remove the cruft and include the two references you've found, which establish the group's notability satisfactorily. Nice finds. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Groovy. I just felt they have just as much right to an article as anybody else with national radio play and a major label contract. I had to fight hard to get So (band) kept, so I try to be aware of band notability anymore.Taniwha 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Still Observing

How is the work on the statin article coming?Wiseoldowl 04:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Prostatitis page, consensus stacking

Hi MastCell! I see you have taken an interest in the controversy surrounding the Prostatitis page, which is very apt since modern theories of the etiology of prostatitis posit mast cells as one of the key components! The user called Reasonablelogicalman, an ex-MD who owns the website prostatitis.org, has long opposed all discussion of non-infectious etiologies and is intent on removing any link to any website that discusses modern research that debunks the old theories of hidden, fastidious infection. He also opposes any link that in any way detracts from his huge network of websites, all of which serve to promote himself and his self-published books. If you are interested, I'll send you more details via email. Skopp 06:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:204.58.248.32

Hi MastCell. I've stumbled upon this user: 204.58.248.32 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who despite a string of warnings (including a "final warning") continues to insert blantant, unencyclopedic POV content in articles. See for example, these lovely edits: [2], [3], [4]. Maybe time for a block? Yilloslime (t) 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP appears to be static, at least for the last month or so, based on the contrib pattern. I've blocked it for 31 hours for disruption and POV-pushing following a final warning; if problems persist after the block expires, then a longer block would probably be appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IP is registered to the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Not sure what, if anything, to make of the Chicago B&I Co connection. BTW, is there board analogous to WP:AIV where I can take this sort of thing in the future, as opposed to bothering individual admins like yourself? Yilloslime (t) 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the event of persistent abusive editing, the matter could be discussed with the sysadmin at CB&I, but that's not indicated at this point. Unfortunately, there's no board for disruptive editing, even textbook cases like this one. It would probably be rejected as too complex or not textbook vandalism at WP:AIV. The fastest approach is to ask an admin directly, or mention it at WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of The Corrections (film)

Hello! I noticed that after an expired period of proposed deletion, this article (on a planned but as yet unmade film) was deleted. I understand why the movie doesn't deserve a separate article. However, in a similar past case (about the in-production-hell The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay (film)), rather than deleting the film article completely, I redirected it to the page about the original novel, and incorporated the information about potential film versions into that page. I'd like to do the same with the Corrections film page...is there any way to retrieve that data? Thanks, Hobbesy3 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the article as a redirect to The Corrections. The page history is now accessible, so you can go to the old revisions and pull out whatever info and sources you'd like to merge into the article about the book. How does that work for you? MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's perfect! Thanks. -Hobbesy3 05:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z is back again

Hi MastCell
After quite some time away indef blocked vandal user:Gon4z has returned. First as User:82.35.33.72 and than he changed from the IP to User:GB-UK-BI. All our favorite Gon4z vandalisms are there again: deleting things from Serbian military articles, inserting Albanian nationalist bogus claims into all kinds of articles: example 1, example 2, example 3. Than there is the blanking of his talkpage again (like this) plus his trying to blank the block notice from user:Gon4zs site (here) and him trying to delete the list of Gon4z socks (here). Plus edit warring, insulting users (mostly me), uploading of images without license, or uploading images and claiming to be the copyright holder, or uploading images that have just been deleted as copyvio... not to forget his his love for sources that talk about all kind of things but not the things he claims they talk about, preferably in a language other than English and all the other Gon4z behavior... Any further discussion is a waste of time; please just block him. --noclador 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, --noclador 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please block the other sock of Gon4z: User:82.35.33.72 he is constantly removing the Gon4z sock notice you left there. --noclador 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BMW 8 series

Sorry to bother you again, but I am having an issue similar to the one we were having on the Mitsubishi GTO page. An anon user is repeatedly adding a complete trivial pop culture appereance and is refusing to discuss the changes. I was hoping that we could get the page semi protected for a bit. It would be great if you could take care of it, but if you would like I could go through the formal process. Let me know what works for you. Thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm online at the moment so I can take care of it, no problem. I've semi-protected it for 2 weeks. If the problem recurs after the semi-protection expires, you can let me know or go to WP:RFPP if I'm not around. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I really appriciate it. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested

Heya - any comment you can make here would be most appreciated. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

I have just recreated Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi. This should never have been speedied, which you did. This man is a serious political figure in Pakistan's history. The backlinks alone should have told you that. A7 is not to be used that way, and your use of it casts some doubt in my mind as to your competence. Charles Matthews 19:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: did you look at the article that I deleted? You are an admin, so please take a look at the deleted revisions. Here was the article's entire content when I speedied it:

Chaudhury was a good man from Gujrat Pakistan having distinguished son Shujat. Shujat having God gifted qualities espacially in speaking. No one can imagin what he is speaking, people only relize about his lips.

I will be the first to admit that I'm not intimately familiar with Pakistani history and did not immediately recognize the name. You will perhaps agree that the content of the article above which I deleted indeed made no claim to notability, and thus fulfilled A7. I'm not sure what "backlinks" you are referring to. I do welcome a more detailed explanation of why you feel that the above text constitutes a valid Wikipedia article, a description of what harm was done by my deletion of such content, and perhaps further elaboration of your doubts regarding my competence. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason that I quit patrolling newpages. It's bad enough catching harassment from people who have their nonsense pages deleted, but to get spat on by other admins for not having the clairvoyant power to see that an article that plainly "does not assert notability" is in fact notable is beyond the pale. Nobody should feign surprise if as a result Wikipedia turns into a glorified MySpace. Raymond Arritt 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that's leading me to reconsider why I spend my time here. Trolls and vandals are no big deal, but when a basic exercise of one's administrative duties leads to this sort of condescending pushback from a senior admin and sitting Arbitrator, being an admin goes from merely thankless to actively unpleasant. I used to wonder why once-productive and invaluable admins get fed up, turn surly, or just disappear. I don't wonder so much anymore. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer the thing about the backlinks. I'm very concerned that A7, in particular, is misused. I find misuse quite often. I'm not consoled by the "letter of the law" on this. Deletion rather than improvement of articles we need is how it should go. I can't prove to you that you should use Google before deleting Pakistanis. If you had, I think you'd have fond that this is someone remembered a long time after his death. You might even have learned that he founded what is the third most important political dynasty in Pakistan, on some reckonings. I can't prove to you that the fact that this name actually occurred on the site already is relevant. Your argument tends to prove to me that A7 is poorly applied, and reinforces systemic bias. Charles Matthews 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be difficult about "backlinks"; I'm honestly not clear on what you mean. I think this is as clear a case of A7 as you'll see. The fact that an article is deleted for failing to assert notability doesn't mean that the subject is non-notable; it means that the article doesn't convey their notability. I'm really not going to lose any sleep over deleting an article reading: "Chaudhury was a good man from Gujrat Pakistan having distinguished son Shujat. Shujat having God gifted qualities espacially in speaking. No one can imagin what he is speaking, people only relize about his lips." That doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, full stop.

Now, an encyclopedic article was later created. If your argument is that I should have left the unencyclopedic, A7 version lying around under the assumption someone would come along to fix it, then I disagree: I think the better option is to delete it, and leave nothing there until an encyclopedic version can be created. If your argument is that I should have improved the article rather than deleting it, then I can only say that I find my volunteer time here spent most effectively contributing content in areas where I'm more familiar with sources and topics, as you probably do.

Your implication that I'm somehow racist or have a low threshold for "deleting Pakistanis" is so ridiculous and even offensive, given the clearly unencyclopedic A7 nature of the article I deleted, that I don't think it warrants a response. Bottom line: a nonsensical article was deleted; when someone knowledgeable and interested came along an encyclopedic article was created on the topic; isn't that the way things are supposed to work? How was the encyclopedia harmed here? MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This was very well said. For what it's worth, I have no doubts about your competance.--Kubigula (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that "backlinks" means Special:Whatlinkshere/Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi. He's certainly welcome to propose that incoming links (along with history as it is now) should be something that has to be checked by admins before speedy deletion, but that is certainly not the case presently. —Random832 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To Charles Matthews: All it would have taken to save the article from this (very legitimate) A7 would have been to have had e.g. "was a former Federal Minister of Pakistan" somewhere - all it takes is a minimal _claim_ of notability - even with no sourcing, that would be enough to require AFD rather than a speedy deletion. But that wasn't there. The _article_ (not person; accusing someone of "deleting pakistanis" is offensive) that was deleted was absolutely worthless. It was indeed worth _less_ than nothing precisely because of the backlinks - someone who knows something about the subject would be more likely to click a link to add stuff if it's red than if it's blue. When the author can't even be bothered to say that the subject is a politician, there's no valid reason not to delete the article on sight. Enough crap articles get created that it's not helpful to be (in effect) placing landmines in the path of NP patrollers. —Random832 15:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre

This is bizarre. At AN/I, everyone seemed to agree that an admin throwing a tantrum and running amok with the delete button was a serious problem. At RFAr, everyone seems to think it's no problem at all. I wonder if the folks commenting at RFAr read the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_deletes_own_images_in_anger. This just seems.. inexplicable to me. Friday (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes: it's hard to think of a more clear-cut case where someone needs to be urgently desysopped, and my sense from the discussion at WP:AN/I was that I'm hardly out on a limb here. People seem more than happy to argue that it's no big deal because you cleaned up the mess - never mind that desysopping someone is no big deal either, and equally reversible once he calms down. But then, I'm starting to feel seriously out of sync with some of the decision-making that takes place here. It's becoming a rare day where I don't feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone. Today, that moment occurred when I was repeatedly referred to dispute resolution. People seem happy to suggest that an isolated, moderately controversial, rapidly undone block is grounds for desysopping, while simultaneously telling me that an admin having a childish meltdown with the tools and promising to do more damage is no big deal, and should be handled by filing an RfC. Which one is more damaging to the encyclopedia? Have I totally lost perspective here? Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue... MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Durin's point below is apt. Emergency desysopping is handled by stewards. The only slight problem is that if you had found and persuaded a steward that Moriori was promising to come back and do more deletions, and succeeded in getting a temporary desysop, that might have cause more drama. One thing I'm not sure about is whether a preventative block would prevent an admin from carrying out deletions (would they have to unblock themselves first to carry out the deletions?). It is also unclear whether the "will do more after dinner" comment was in the middle of the deletions, or the last comment - it now seems the timestamps suggest the former. The other approach would be to leave a strong warning on Moriori's talk page, and watch to see how things develop. An RfArb was premature. Carcharoth 11:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

Calling for Moriori to be desysopped is premature. The dispute resolution processes should be at least tried. He's not run off half cocked and deleted the main page or anything like that. Understand, there's NO way ArbCom can respond fast enough to desysop him to prevent damage to the project. When such a situation occurs, the stewards step in. ArbCom always agrees with the decision, but it's the stewards that prevent mass damage to the project, not ArbCom. Observe; it's been five hours since you submitted the RfAr. No ArbCom member has even commented yet. Moriori could have caused a lot of damage already. RfAr isn't the right venue, nor are the stewards. The situation's being handled; his deletions have been undone [5], and mainspace changes are undone. Further, he's being talked to about the situation, even if he's not responded yet. All the best, --Durin 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine; I understand that ArbCom is not particularly rapid, though I've seen them fast-track cases in the past. If the argument is that it doesn't belong before ArbCom, then fine, close the request and remove it. On the other hand, if the argument is that there's no need to desysop someone who's gone incommunicado after storming off in a rampage of deletions, replete with indelible abusive epithets against another editor, then I strongly disagree. He should be desysopped preventively until it's clear that he's calmed down. Of course all admin actions can be undone - that's hardly the point, and it's a bit disrespectful to the people who've spent their time cleaning up after him to suggest it's no big deal because he didn't blank the main page. Desysopping him so isn't causing drama or escalating the situation; it's preventing more drama. If we don't desysop people under these circumstances, then what do we desysop them for? MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in but (obviously) I mostly agree with MastCell here.. I'm a bit surprised this wasn't seen as a case for quick action. I'm sure if he comes back and goes on another wrongful deletion spree it'll be dealt with quickly, so maybe there's no real harm done. Still, I think once is enough for that. Why wait for it to happen again? If we had reason to think an account was hijacked, and it was used wrongfully, I bet we wouldn't wait for that to happen a second time before acting. Friday (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dietary treatments for multiple sclerosis

Please see my comments at Talk:Dietary treatments for multiple sclerosis. I am proposing deletion of the article as it is being abused and the information is already covered or can be covered elsewhere. Let's discuss if you object. OccamzRazor 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection - see the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad we agree. OccamzRazor 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mazda RX-7

Hey if you are around I am having trouble with an IP over at RX-7. They are repeatedly adding clearly false info despite warnings. Thanks for your help. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of assume good faith, don't bite the newbies, etc, I've left a note on his talk page asking him to discuss the issue and provide sources instead of edit-warring. If that doesn't work, then I will probably block the IP, which appears static. MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thats is probably the best way to handle the situation. I have explained it to the IP on my talk page and think the issue is resolved. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z

Hi, last week you blocked a sock of Gon4z User talk:82.35.33.72. well the week is up and he has immediately started to add his imaginations to all kind of articles again... but i have no time to clean up after him tonight - could you have a look and make sure he does not again insert everywhere inflated, biased and wrong numbers/informations? thanks, --noclador 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another admin has already extended it to 1 month, which sounds appropriate. The IP appears quite static, so if it recurs in a month then we can go from there. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Guardian reliability

One of the Guardian links used as a source (at some point) was clearly labelled "comment", which led me to believe it was an opinion. In retrospect, having done more investigation, I agree that the Guardian was probably borderline OK as a source. But the majority of the section in question was sourced not to the Guardian but to Exxonsecrets, which I believe is inappropriate for a BLP. In any case, you found a much better source in Newsweek, and that's a huge improvement. I'm still a little concerned about weight - as I was about the Sagan thing - but the Newsweek source makes it much better than it was before. ATren 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I share your concern about using pieces that are clearly op-eds or commentary and presenting them as "The Washington Post wrote..." or "The Guardian wrote..." I think ExxonSecrets is pretty iffy or downright unacceptable in and of itself in a BLP, in much the same way that primary sources are unacceptable as standalone sources. So long as its contentions are supported by reliable secondary sources, though, I'm not as bothered, but I understand your point. The WP:WEIGHT issue is a bit unsettled, and the text I inserted based on the Newsweek article was just a starting point - it could probably stand to be condensed. On the other hand, ties between global warming skeptics and the oil industry are a heavily reported subject in general, and relevant to their public role, so I think there is sufficient weight in the published sources to warrant coverage - though whether the article as currently written appropriately meets WP:WEIGHT, I'm not sure. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unethical conduct charge

MastCell, you posted at my talk:

...If you continue campaigning, vote-counting, and aruging your case outside the DRV, particularly using the sort of uncivil language cited by User:BrownHairedGirl, then you're likely to be blocked at least for the duration of the deletion review for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MastCell Talk 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)...

You may appreciate that since I disagree with BrownHairedGirl in numerous places, I don't accept merely citing her as authority. I would appreciate it if you would cite specifics (which I could address). I was not familir with any guideline about "vote-counting" (perhaps you could point me to it), and I would be interested in what constitutes unacceptable campaigning beyond the "canvassing" issue which is being addressed at ANI. Thanks, Pete St.John 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to the diffs cited by User:BrownHairedGirl on WP:AN/I, where you expressed your opposition to this deletion in quite uncivil terms. It's not her authority; it's a direct quote. I think I answered the rest of this in my initial post on your talk page: it is acceptable to neutrally notify a Wikiproject of an AfD or DRV (e.g. "X article is up at AfD; opinions welcome.") Your comments are well beyond the pale, and have already been cited at AN/I - you've been aggressively trying to "get out the vote" in support of your position at the Wikiproject, and campaigning there, and demonizing editors who don't share your view ([6]), all of which is entirely inappropriate. You've received similar feedback at the Wikiproject, I believe. The bottom line is this: restrain your arguments to the DRV page; feel free to notify the Wikiproject of an ongoing discussion, but don't campaign there (and the difference really is quite obvious); and focus on the issue at hand rather than imputing the worst possible motivation to those who disagree with you. Not only are these basic behavioral standards on Wikipedia, but they will actually make your position and arguments far more convincing to neutral observers. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Yes, I have received similar "feedback", in substantial quanity, and I try very hard to address each point, so as to either admit a mistake, rebut the point, or at least amplify the context. I'm specifically and, I think, conspicously not trying to duck any accusation. Brownhairedgirl has posted a great deal about me and about the campaigning and about the subject. I actually would appreciate it, as I asked above, for a specific. Which sentence, paragraph, post, word, or whatever, do you consider an actionable excess? I don't mean to miss answering any such accusation at any place I can find it on my watchlist, but there is a great deal going on and I'm sure I've missed some. Thanks, Pete St.John 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

TShilo12

I've no idea what's going through the mind of this person, who (I just realised) is actually a fellow admin. You would think that an admin of all people would know and respect WP:NPA. Thanks for tackling this - I've left my comments on AN/I. I do think a short block is insufficient to deal with the egregiousness of TShilo12's behaviour; a few days to a week would be more appropriate, in my view. -- ChrisO 20:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've discussed this at AN/I and submitted it for more uninvolved feedback there. I think a long block is not likely to serve any real purpose; after all, this is a generally constructive contributor. But obviously there needs to be some sort of follow-through, since this behavior is entirely unacceptable and corrosive (especially from an admin), and obviously the earlier go-round and warnings entirely failed to improve things. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Camp Archbald. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --evrik ^(talk) 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Camp Arrowhead (Washington). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --evrik ^(talk) 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Those were deleted PROD's. As spelled out at WP:PROD, if you just request that I undelete them, I'll do it. There's no need to go through deletion review, and I'm not sure what you meant there by "not enough time was given." Anyhow, I'll send them through AfD instead. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)