User talk:MastCell

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

When you talk about the press criticism of Palin's Bridge to Nowhere, I wonder whether it's more notable that there's been a lot of criticism or what the critics said. I will put the Newsweek criticism that you removed back in the main text because I think frankly it sums it all up best in a pithy way (Now she acts like she's always been it against it), but I can see how putting it in all the quotes would make it too long. How about, since you removed the Newsweek and Wall Street Journal quotes, if you put all the critiques in the footnotes save the ones we leave in the text? A short phrase from each press source will do nicely. That way a reader need not click on the links to find out the essence of the criticism. You could put in the footnotes the Wall Street Journal quote you took out and quotes from the new sources you added. What do you think? I would ask though that you not remove the Newsweek quote though. I think it's far better than the Washington Post quote, because calling something a half-truth is never as notable as showing something to be a half-truth.GreekParadise (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the reason for the criticism is already summed up in the preceding paragraphs - it describes her support for the bridge, the initial attribution of its death to mean ole Congress, and then claiming credit for killing it off. The notable thing about the criticism, to me, was that it was widespread and coming from third-party sources, not just from the opposing campaign. It's actually pretty unusual (or has been, recently) for the media to call a candidate on "exaggerations" or untruths, so the volume of coverage was a bit surprising. I don't like to turn the article into a series of quotes - people can just read the sources themselves, hence the footnotes - and I prefer to summarize rather than patch together excerpts. I also thought the section was getting too long and unwieldy, and was trying to make it a more pleasant read (the effect of numerous quotes on a reader, I've found, is usually eyes-glazing-over). Anyhow, perhaps we should continue this on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Found something

I stumbled across a study you might be amused by. It is here.

Discussion: ... It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use <redacted> is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency. The widespread use of <redacted> may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events. Conclusion: As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of <redacted> has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of <redacted>.

I hope it amuses you. GRBerry 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that has long been a favorite of mine. There are many good things to be said for evidence-based medicine, but it does have some obsessive, anticommonsensical, cult-like elements which are neatly parioded in that BMJ piece. I cited it in a talk I gave at an institution where I'd trained, one of the leading lights in the evidence-based medicine movement. Reaction was mixed.

This is my second-favorite; always generates discussion. "The tallest and most handsome male students were more likely to go for surgery, and the shortest (and perhaps not so good looking) ones were more likely to become... doctors of internal medicine and its subspecialties." MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Crud article needing help

Can you take a look at Mythomania and get it beyond dictionary definition level to at least a decent stub? I'm reasonably certain psychiatry is not your specialty, but it is outside my competence zone. It came to my attention due to a thread at the BLP noticeboard. GRBerry 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, my training in psychiatry consists of 6 weeks spent in a locked-down inpatient psych ward as a medical student. It was good training for Wikipedia, actually. I still remember that once my resident and I were walking past the common room on the ward, where the music therapist was leading a group of patients in singing the song "I Believe I Can Fly". My resident and I stopped and looked at each other; the inspirational element was lost on us, as several of the patients did, literally, believe they could fly, a delusion which we were hoping to cure. In any case, I will look at the article, though it may be a couple of days. MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected it to Pseudologia fantastica (pathological lying). There are about 16 PubMed hits for "mythomania" - interestingly, nearly all in the French literature. Most are quite aged - the most recent is from 1995 or so. A quick Google search revealed mostly dictionary definitions, all of which bear a close resemblance to "pathological lying". I think that whatever differences may exist between "mythomania" and "pathological lying" could be covered in one article; certainly without sources (and I could not find any in my brief survey) a standalone article seems unwarranted, notwithstanding the BLP issues. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How about working on an article, and ignoring drama, a novel idea

Hypertension. It's a mess of an article, and it's really a key one. Going back to my singular mantra that more people come to Wikipedia for medical knowledge than their personal physician, the article is an MOS mess. And it's inaccurate. And it's hard to read (too many bullet points). I've been trying to get it laid out right, but wow. By the way, did you read the COURAGE study? I'm going to sell everything, and ride my motorcycle across the country without shaving, showering, and eating right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. MastCell ^Talk 05:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your comment on my talk page

"I'm curious about your method ...." <-- I've been reading the edit history of the Picard BLP, its talk page and related Wikipedia pages. I take notes and ask questions. Feel free to come over and participate. I welcome input from people who have edited the Picard BLP and other related articles. My short-term goal is to help improve Wikipedia articles. My long term goal is to learn from the past and help prevent future problems from arising in Wikipedia biographies. --JWSurf (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well:

1. I've never edited Rosalind Picard, nor, for that matter, any article even loosely connected to intelligent design, to my recollection;
2. I already take WP:BLP seriously, as I hope my record here will attest;
3. Having viewed the Wikiversity "investigation", I have no interest in legitimizing what appears to be a personal vendetta cloaked in an extraordinarily skimpy fig leaf.

Whatever questions you're asking, you've not bothered to ask me anything before questioning my motives and actions. It's hard to see the Wikiversity "investigation" as anything but an ironic exemplar of the very lack of professionalism which it purports to decry. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall having previously thought about your motives, but now that you raise the idea....why not? I have previously been puzzled about your actions: 1) why you, rather than KC, posted the block notice, 2) why the block notice you used had a link to the vandalism page and 3) why you failed to make sure that your signature showed on the talk page along with the link to the vandalism page. Since you mentioned the issue of motive, I now wonder why you felt motivated to place the block notice on Moulton's page. Did KC ask you to place the block notice on Moulton's page? If you had never previously edited with Moulton, why did you participate in his request for comment? How much time passed between the notice of Moulton's block and your statement...hm, what was your pithy and well-considered comment based on your careful evaluation of Moulton as a Wikipedian who had been seeking to fix biased BLPs....."good call"? I'm really glad that you take WP:BLP seriously, it shows in that comment. It is always good to see dedicated Wikipedians who carefully review a fellow Wikipedian's edit history before handing out an indef block. I'm tempted to award you the "ironic exemplar of professionalism barnstar". "a personal vendetta" <-- I've only known of Moulton's existence for a short time. I've long been involved in cleaning up bad Wikipedia BLPs. The only personal aspect of my involvement in BLP cleaning is my shame when Wikipedia does not get a BLP right. --JWSurf (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence. When you skeptically list my actions in a manner which implies sinister rather than everyday motivation, followed by: "Why did MastCell get involved? Why did MastCell do X? Why did he do Y?" in the context of your "investigation" into cabalism, you're questioning my motives. You're welcome to do that; I don't think, however, that the way in which you went about it is consistent with the ethical standards you claim to be focused on, nor with the professional "investigation" which the Wikiversity pages ostensibly comprise.

Since you ask:

1. I placed the block notice because I saw that the block had been enacted but no talk-page notice had been placed. I did not include a signature because I was not the blocking admin, and the signature might have given that impression. This is not the only time I've done exactly this (placed a block template to notify an editor of another admin's block, without using the "sig" parameter). I don't feel like going through my logs, which are rather lengthy, but with a fraction of the effort you've already invested in this investigation I'm sure you can find examples.
2. I used the {{uw-block3}} template. This is the standard, generic indefinite-block template. I was not aware at the time that its default link was to WP:VANDAL. Nonetheless, the block followed directly from Moulton's RfC, and between that and his subsequent commentary I have no doubt that he was directly aware of the rationale for the block, regardless of the link to WP:VANDAL.
3. No, KillerChihuahua did not ask me to place the block notice. Since you seem to view this as a possible scenario, I'm curious why you think she would do that?

I thought, based on my evaluation at the time, that Moulton was extremely unlikely to be a good fit with Wikipedia's policies and behavioral expectations. I saw his activity as disruptive, and a block as preventive: hence I endorsed KillerChihuahua's block, as well as her decision to post the block to WP:AN/I for outside feedback. While subsequent events have led to me to reconsider some aspects of my initial evaluation of Moulton, one thing that has been amply and fully reinforced was my original judgement: his approach is an extraordinarily poor fit for Wikipedia (and, it appears, several other online forums), and as such the block was reasonable.

I'm sympathetic to Moulton on several levels; the block has obviously been an extremely difficult experience for him to digest, and I feel badly about that as one human being to another. However, as far as I'm concerned, the block is not a judgement that he's a bad person; it's simply a judgement that this site's policies and goals are ill-suited for him. Those kind of judgements have to be made every day for an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to function. I see absolutely nothing in my commentary about Moulton, either during his RfC or subsequently, that violates the letter or spirit of WP:BLP, or for that matter any of our other behavioral policies. Are you suggesting that because I endorsed another admin's block with the words "Excellent call", that I've acted unprofessionally or contrary to WP:BLP? I don't understand the reasoning there.

Quite a few people have raised concerns about the process of the block, including some for whose judgement I have great respect. I'd be foolish not to re-examine Moulton's block in that context, and I have. I've drawn some lessons which I've tried to implement in my approach going forward. Do you have any other questions I can answer, or clarifications you would like? MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Please don't insult my intelligence" <-- I'm a scientist and I am well practiced in how to research a topic without jumping to conclusions. I formulate hypotheses and test them. Almost all of my hypotheses get rejected after I look at the evidence. I am perfectly capable of asking questions such as "Why did MastCell get involved?" without trying to imagine your thoughts and motivations. I know that I cannot read minds, so I seldom speculate about what people who I do not know closely might have been thinking. Above, I asked, "...why did you participate in his request for comment?" I guess what I meant is, "How did you become aware of the request for comment?" Based on your edit history, it looks like you just dropped in out of the blue in order to endorse KC's decision to indef block. Did KC or some other participant in the RfC ask you to endorse KC's decision to indef block? How long did you spend studying Moulton's edit history? "why you think she would do that?" <-- a reasonable hypothesis is that KC was making a questionable indef block, and she knew it. She invited others to reverse her action. It seems possible that she was in IRC or some other chat and said, "Moulton pissed me off and I hit him with an indef block, but it might not stand, since he did nothing to earn it." You might have been in the chat and decided to endorse the block at her request. Stranger things have happened. "any other questions" <-- Do you really feel that it is a good block when the correct reason for the block is not given and there is no link provided to the person who leaves the block message on the blocked person's talk page? Do you really think this is the routine way to do an indef block? If you consciously did not sign, why didn't you make sure that KC went back and signed? Both you and KC looked at that talk page many times ofter you placed the block template, but neither of you felt the need to provide a signature? Isn't part of blocking giving the reason for the block and allowing the blocked person to ask questions? I don't see how this can be a valid block when Moulton did not know the reason and had no link to a person who could explain what was going on. Can you explain your motivation for this and this? I don't understand the edit summary, "Enough silliness". Why did you return to Moulton's page in order to prevent him from using it? What was your interest in his case? Did someone else ask you to protect the page from editing? "I have no doubt that he was directly aware of the rationale for the block" <-- I do have doubt about that. What makes you think he understood what was happening to him? "an extraordinarily poor fit for Wikipedia" <-- Can you expand on this? How is it that someone tried to correct a biased BLP and you label them a "poor fit for Wikipedia"? We must get BLPs right, so we are supposed to listen to people who explain that a BLP is biased. Did you evaluate Moulton's argument before you slapped the indef block on him? What was the rush to indef block Moulton? "Are you suggesting that because I endorsed another admin's block with the words 'Excellent call', that I've acted unprofessionally" <-- you've never explained how you reached the decision to indef block Moulton. It looks like KC asked you to endorse a bad block and you did so. Is there another way to interpret your actions? --JWSurf (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No one asked me to look at the RfC. No one asked me to endorse anyone's decision or validate anyone's block. No one asked me to leave the block notice. No one asked me to protect his talk page. No one "chatted" to me about anything, as I've never used IRC or any similar chatroom software. These were all judgements and actions I undertook independently because they seemed to me most consistent with the goals and policies of this website. Incidentally, that should be your null hypothesis; what evidence led you to reject it in favor of conspiracy theories? MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All I have to go on is the edit history and what you have told me. It seems to me that imposing an indefinite block on a non-vandal normally involves having a significant amount of familiarity with the blocked editor's history and some discussion of the matter with other editors....and, as I said above, providing the correct reason for the block and a signature on the block notice. In the absence of evidence for any of these, what you suggest as the null hypothesis did not seem to fit the evidence available to me...for example, I still do not know how you noticed and took an interest in Moulton. I did not reject the null hypothesis, but alternative hypotheses came to mind and I've been asking questions, trying to understand what happened. You asked me, "I'm curious why you think she would do that?" I don't know why she would indef block and not post the reason on the blocked editor's talk page. I'm stumped. You invited me to ask questions, so I've been trying to reconstruct a coherent narrative of events. Based on the evidence available to me, the first hypothesis that came to mind was that a group of editors had been studying Moulton's editing and discussing how to respond to him. Now you have informed me that you did not participate in any chat discussions with other editors. It also seems possible that you had individually spent some time looking at Moulton's editing history, so that's why asked if could could provide another way to interpret your actions. Do you remember when you first began to study Moulton's edit history? Can you estimate how much time you spent reviewing Moulton's editing history? Also, I still don't understand why you returned to protect Moulton's page from editing. --JWSurf (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And MastCell, have you stopped beating your wife? (More at WP:BAIT.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was that your effort to construct a coherent narrative did not involve asking the participants for their perspectives. Again, you speculate about KillerChihuahua's motivation: have you asked her why she did X, Y, or Z? That's typically among the first steps in any investigation.

I suspect I became aware of Moulton because I have other editors' talk pages watchlisted and I noticed discussion or posts from Moulton there. I have no idea how long I spent thinking about his editing, but it's time that I would like back. As to why I protected his page, this may answer your question. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to talk with me! --JWSurf (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. In the future, if you have a question about some of my actions, I'm happy to discuss them and respond to questions about them. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Davkal Sock

There's a new Davkal Sock. Can you help? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure - can you point me in the right direction? MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you have a look at this SSP report? I filed it a few days ago, but it looks like there aren't any admins watching that noticeboard or something. Anyways the (suspected) sock has not been back since, but it's pretty obviously a sock that was created to evade an indef block, so, it seems to me that it should be blocked. Yilloslime (t) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SSP#User:Aeronbrau looks a lot like Davkal. For instance, their first contribution was to Talk:Parapsychology, and includes such gems as On many occasions SA has miscited material and After all, it's SA's opinion and it therefore must be right - even if nobody else is clever enough to know this or to have written it. Good luck. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of 83.249.240.108

I just unblocked after a scan found no evidence that IP was an open proxy. Since the user's unblock request accused you of having done this because of what he was saying about you, I have to ask you what evidence you had that led you to believe the IP was an open proxy. Given his claim of involvement in a content dispute with you at a registered account, I really want to hear (well, read) what you have to say. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. It was actually user:ChrisO's behaviour that I had complaints over. Although, this admin blocked me just a short time after ChrisO noticed my complaints, citing reasons which were not true. This led me to believe that MastCell blocked me for complaining over ChrisO --83.249.240.108 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's an anonymizing IP which lacks reverse DNS information; the editor using the IP appeared not to be a new user and was using the IP in a manner I thought was inappropriate. I do not see where he "claimed a registered account" - am I missing something? I suspect that this IP editor does have a registered account, but I have no idea what that account is or what "involvement" I'm said to have had. Daniel, did you independently look into that claim or accept it at face value? Actually, I see the IP's clarification. I'm not going to argue the unblock, but I can't say I think the project is well-served by editors socking with anonymizing IP's. Am I missing something? MastCell ^Talk 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved recently. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Constance Congdon

Hi - I was going to create an article on this playwright but I see that you deleted one last year. If I'd known that the article had existed but had been deleted for reasons to do with WP:Notability I would have been in a position to improve it, being a professional admirer of her work. I didn't raise any objection to the article's deletion at the time because I wasn't keeping track of it, and I didn't know that it had been proposed for deletion - if I had known, I would have objected. She is not all that well-known, but Tony Kushner for one has written in fulsome praise of her stuff. Info on her is not very easy to find, but she is certainly notable in the wikipedian sense. If you restore the article it would save me the bother of starting again from scratch, and I could provide some references. Thanks. Lexo (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I've responded on your talk page - I'd be happy to help. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Friendly unsolicited advice

Re your comments at the Omnibus Arbcom, there are lots of people there who are crazed for BLOODBLOODBLOOD so best to stay the hell away from there if you value your sanity. (Whether you value your sanity is entirely up to you.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since they already got your blood (or you drained it before they could suck it out of you), why don't you comment for all of us. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Man... everyone is so serious. You'd think we were trying to cure cancer or something. I'm surprised I wasn't blocked a month or so ago for rickrolling on the case talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

I've put on the talk page a plea for the simple consensus version we all agreed on for a week until two days ago. I saw you thought it got convoluted as well. What do you think?GreekParadise (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it. To be honest, I'm losing interest a bit; the paragraph is unreadable, but there appears to be a vested interest in maintaining it that way. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Assuming, for the moment, that I want to do slightly more in the way of pulling my weight around here, and at least helping out a little on POV edit-warrior magnets like Sarah Palin or Barak Obama, I could do with a little reality-based guidance. I know what the article probation "says", I'm curious what it actually "means" really. For example, the block I made yesterday was easy; they'd been warned, they were clearly edit warring, and it was for 24 hours; pretty standard. However, do I read the article probation wording correctly that as long as I don't go nuts, I can use my discretion a little more freely than normal in these cases? For example, if someone violates the article probation once, gets blocked, comes back, and resumes problematic behavior, can I unilaterally ban them from the page for a couple of months, (and if they come back, indef block right away)? Or is that overstepping and likely to cause me grief? If I'm going to have to block for 24hrs, then 48, then 72, then a week, then 2 weeks, then a month... well, then I just won't try to pull my own weight after all. I trust my own judgement enough so that if my only limitation is that normal non-POV pushing people won't think I've gone to far, I'll wade in, but if I have to mollycoddle, I won't. For example, I just reblocked User:Redrumracer after his previous block expired, even though he hadn't edited since, based on a lack of tolerance for POV socks; was that overstepping because I didn't discuss with the previous blocking admin, or because he wasn't given another chance? --barneca (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two pence from the peanut gallery. I think that the probation for the Obama article is meant to serve as a serious warning to anybody notified, and to encourage admins to be a bit more free with their tool use - but always using sound judgment and looking at the overall effect of the editor's contributions. I also think the community ought to be as explicit about putting Palin related articles on probation. I personally tend to be very restrained about using the blocking tool, but am believing it should be much more extensively used on the various partisan SPAs infesting these articles. I'm not in as much favor of using that tool on experienced editors who are trying to deal with the SPAs. GRBerry 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no black-and-white answer. Article probation enhances the power of individual admins' discretion. This works well if your discretion matches up with community expectations, and not so well otherwise (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka). Ideally, it should mean less wikilawyering, and that the balance has shifted toward policy enforcement and away from everyone-has-the-right-to-4-escalating-warnings-followed-by-16-slowly-escalating-blocks. Personally, I try to give admins enforcing "probation" or "discretionary sanctions" wide latitude, because second-guessing their every move makes the probation worthless.

I think your judgement is good. You can impose article or topic bans under terms of the probation, but I typically send these to WP:AN/I for review immediately after I place them. That gives you a sanity check (not that AN/I is particularly sane) as well as some cover. Basically, you should feel empowered to do what you think is necessary upfront, but as always if you're questioning whether a specific action was overreaching, then proactively send it to AN/I or at least get a sanity check from an uninvolved editor. I think the block of Redrumracer was fine, but recognize that I've been told I'm very quick on the trigger so maybe others would be less happy about it. I'd suggest that you leave a note on his talk page indicating that if he agrees to discuss on the talk page, cease edit-warring, and take a look at the relevant policy pages before editing, that you would unblock him. This doesn't cost much, and if he resumes the same behavior it's easy enough to reblock.

To sum up, probation means that the community has decided that a strong hand is needed. You should feel justified in doing what seems appropriate - after all, you've been through the vetting process - but be sensitive to signs that "normal", established editors think you're overreaching, and have a low threshold for proactively seeking feedback on decisions. I've seen the mob turn on an admin pretty quickly, and "bold" actions can look foolhardy to armchair QB's :) I say that not to discourage you, but to emphasize the importance of getting explicit review and sanity checks upfront when in doubt. Since AN/I is a bit disorderly in the best of times, I find it most useful to impose the remedy first and then submit it to AN/I for review; if you go to AN/I and ask an open-ended what-should-be-done question, it will never go anywhere.

That's my philosophy, for what it's worth. Don't feel like you need to pull a huge load on your own at Sarah Palin or Barack Obama; I tried that, as have others, and it leads to burnout pretty quickly. Good luck. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what MastCell says, but I'm not quite as optimistic about AN/I as he is. I've had good luck with "here is what I did, if anyone is willing to put in the additional work required to do better, my blessings on doing it and reversing my action". That good luck hasn't yet included anyone actually doing the extra work, but my taking that position sure muted the grumbling about people saying trying other things - especially when I came back with "as I said, please go do the work, that would be more valuable than commenting from the peanut gallery". GRBerry 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. I certainly don't plan on pulling a huge load and burning out; I don't edit frequently enough for that. But I'll keep an eye out and intervene where I think it wise. --barneca (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

palin quotes

see here cheers Tvoz/talk 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, every now and then I try to just read the Palin article to see if it makes sense as a whole. It's much more useful than trying to track specific edits and changes. That particular content-to-citation disconnect jumped out at me. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work on Palin

Just a heads up that Hobartimus may have violated 3RR, but I wouldn't actually want to throw the book at them because I think it was in good faith. See my talk page for details. I put a complaint on their talk page, which they deleted, as is their right. Homunq (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(Also, I know I shouldn't be, but I have to be happy when you stand up for Democrats when the talk page goes off-topic)Homunq (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I could take a look, but I'm certainly involved enough on the page that I'm not about to block anyone or anything. I think you guys are on the right track by de-escalating and trying to find common ground. I do think BLP is a bit overused on this particular page as a justification for edit-warring, but that's just me. Personally, I think the whole Bridge thing is more trouble than it's worth - no reader is going to really care whether it mentions Wasilla or not, and it just creates bad feeling among editors.

I do feel bad when I contribute to off-topic chatter on the talk page, but sometimes I can't resist. I do have my political leanings, ideas, and so forth, which I assume are fairly obvious, but my overarching pet peeve is silly partisan talking points, and they seem to creep into the discussion there from time to time. MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also stopped to say thank you. While I agree that the Bridges to Nowhere "talkstorm" may be a waste of time and effort, GreekParadise deserves support. (I Do think it should mention Anchorage and nearby Wasila.) It is obvious partisanship to exclude it. The continued effort to rule the roost by other editors that were editing the Sarah Palin article 5 weeks before she accepted is playing havoc with any sense of neutrality. They are devisive and rude. But, I am proud of the fact that, most times, we stay on point. It is a marathon. Glad you're in the race.--Buster7 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any interest in fighting a battle. I think the Bridges should be mentioned, briefly, but I also think a lot of the detail (Anchorage/Wasilla, etc) belongs in subarticles and not in the Palin biography. I think it's tempting to see partisanship in every argument or edit, and I have no doubt it is a dominant motivation for some editors there. Still, I think there are a lot of good editors there; progress can be made; and the lower the rhetorical temperature, the more likely that is to happen.

The challenge is that appropriate weight changes by the day or week. For a time, the Bridge To Nowhere was really the top (or among the top few) Palin-related stories. Now it's taking a bit of a backseat, so perhaps abrdiging the coverage and moving some detail to the subarticles is appropriate. I don't want to see it excised, or see the public reaction to the campaign's claims bowdlerized, but I also don't think the reader is well-served by cramming in every possible detail and beating the drum about it—most readers are sophisticated enough to realize when they're being led by the nose. Anyhow, I've seen real progress in the article and the editing environment over the past few weeks, so I'm hopeful. Keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have it watchlisted, but I tend to ignore it. The quote looks fine, although I'm a bit chagrined that I used the adverb "Freudianly"—I think I could have done better, but you can't turn back the clock :) I'll take a look at the discussion; to be honest, I feel like I've said the same thing a few dozen times now, so either I'm not expressing it clearly or people just don't agree. Anyhow, thanks for "canvassing" me. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi back

Thanks, though I'm afraid I've been failing to contribute very much lately. It's good to know there are people like you keeping an eye on things. Keep up the good work! Trezatium (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a word...

... with Kelly (talk · contribs)? See [1], [2]... just as we are engaged in an editorial dispute at Sarah Palin... Oh well... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have much influence there, but let me see what can be done. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. See also User_talk:Kelly#What_is_this.3F ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look this over

Please look at this discussion and this comment in it by Flatterworld, and please tell me whether or not Flatterworld is suddenly escalating the heat and incivility of that discussion from 0-60 in half a second. I have responded badly to his previous escalations, several months ago on that page, but I'd prefer to concentrate on the topic if I can, and discuss in a calm way the merits based on the policies and the new facts in the sources, and it's increasingly hard to do so faced with that kind of sudden assault. I wouldn't mind so much if this occured immediately after a heated discussion, but this is the first time he's interacted with me other than something brief and civil more than a week ago at the Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC (see "Statement by Flatterworld" and my response in the subsection below it). Please tell him that it's a very bad idea to escalate like that, and I'll concentrate on the discussion. -- Noroton (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Flatterworld has complained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Noroton. I'll be away from the keyboard for the next 9 hours or maybe 20 hours, depending on how tired I am tonight, so no hurry, but I think Flatterworld will just start up again later. Maybe it will all be resolved over at AN/I. -- Noroton (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try to take a look, though I've been away from those articles for some time and I don't know how much time I'll have before Monday. It looks like the Ayers page was protected temporarily, which is probably for the best. I haven't interacted with Flatterworld, but certainly my general impression of you is favorable based on your history working on some tough areas. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

TranslationHeretic Calling

What's the next step?--TranslationHeretic (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... the next step is that you tell me who you are, why you're on my talkpage, and what I can do for you. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You blocked URL Translation, and I am the quality analyst consultant. What is the next step for progressing up Wikipedia's quality assessment scale, from the present B-Class quality rating upwards, as put forward for discussion. What's your roadmap? --TranslationHeretic (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I interpret this to mean that you are a sockpuppet of Eurominuteman (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked user whose block evasion with IP's led Talk:Translation to be semiprotected. I think the roadmap is pretty clear. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Davkal using spoofing from Indonesia

Probably anyway: User:216.245.208.61. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear. Can you just block the open proxy? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sourced content from article under Afd

For example here [3] and here [4] one time with the edit summary, "newsfactor is not a good WP:BLP source" without any explanation how it's not a good source, link to consensus where it was established etc. In the other edit summary with the claim that [5] appearing in the "Today @ PC World" section of the magazine is a blog. The article from PC World was tracked by Google News. The "Blog" seems to fit the definition given at WP:V [6] "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.")." almost 100%. The article making no extraordinary claim also referenced Wired.Com so it would have been very easy to find an alternative source and retain the content. After these deletions [7] you voted delete in the Afd. This is the point where I'm confused. From one hand with your vote you make a statement "no need to improve the article let's delete it instead of improving it" and on the other hand you make edits to it, deletions, which are supposed to do exactly that, to improve the article. I wanted to ask if this is standard practice during Afds, you deleted about 25 percent of the article. If this is common practice, one other person and it would be at 50% already and so on not even giving a chance for Afd participants to actually see the article they comment about. Hobartimus (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is standard practice to remove poorly sourced, potentially contentious material about living people wherever it is encountered. The fact that an article is up for AfD does not justify the persistence of WP:BLP violations. Good sources exist (the AP, other reputable news outlets), so I fail to see the necessity to cram in material from the PCWorld blog and NewsFactor, which is a technology trade industry publication as best I can tell. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Would this [8] be also considered a blog by your standard? I'd be willing to improve the article but with deletion coming in a few days I'm not sure it's worth it if you are willing to challange sourced content to this high degree. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a blog, by any standard. It's hosted by Wired, so it falls under the "may be acceptable" clause of WP:BLP. My objection is a bit more global; we are racing to base our coverage on rumors reported in these and other blogs (the Wired one you cite even explicitly notes that they have no idea what actually happened). Instead, we should hang back a bit and base our coverage on better sources. This is a WP:BLP of a private individual who may, or may not, have done something illegal. I think the spirit and meaning of WP:BLP is that we be a bit more conservative (NPI) and encyclopedic, and in less of an unseemly rush to insert the latest rumor, even when that rumor is posted in a borderline-acceptable blog. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pan Penn for Palin

I am with you, against inclusion of the Mark Penn thing. It is trivial at best. btw love your Strangeglove userbox. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I'll open a discussion thread about it on the Palin talk page. Thanks for the compliments on the userbox; you're welcome to steal it if you like. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Advice

First off, thanks for your feed back both here and on ANI. I wish people would stop pussy footing around, when I put up my actions for review, I fully expect advice, criticism, and discussion. So in other words, please do comment and advise, and I genuinely thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Onto the thrust of the issue:

On the issue of the ultimatum, I have a few thoughts. The first of which is this seems to be very much a result of two and half years away. Way back when, when a posting is found unacceptable, a user is told to remove it. Sometimes "asked" but always in a way that shows its not an at your convince request, but a request from an administrator dealing with a conduct issue. Or rather, that is how I remember it. The comment by Kelly in question to me fell under the category of "unacceptable statement." To me that outright deserves a block, but as per my own personal policy, and what I thought was the general decorum on Wikipedia, I warned the user. One of the dicier parts was the tone and the 10 minute time limit. The tone I will admit to. Kicking editors when they're down is not OK, and threatens to disrupt what little cooperative atmosphere exists on controversial articles, and I am not prone to being nice and flowery on what I see as an egregious issue. The ten minute part was a way of saying "I'm not kidding, I'm not waiting, you're active now, do it now." Aside from the short time limit, this falls within what I think of as a reasonable offer to a person to undo an offense before they are blocked for it.

Is it a threat? I guess so. A complicating factor was Kelly's conduct in the past on the related issue (ID Cabal nonsense) and with myself and other admins in general (3RR, Sarah Palin, checkuser, the civility nightmare that is Kelly's talk page archives and removed notices). All of those things suggested to me that polite asking was not solving the crux of the issue: a persistent pattern of incivility (or at least a lack of decorum). So I guess I never really thought to make sure I had de-escalate the situation. I didn't discard the idea out of hand, it just never came up, to me the situation had already escalated to the point where Kelly had made a blockable offense, a sort of disruptive incivility that had crossed the line.

As for face saving, I'm of two minds. I have no problem letting people save face when the substance of the issue is unchanged, but to me civility is not negotiable: its demanded. In my mind, I still think that Kelly "should" have backed down, no matter the so called humiliation. He screwed up, and not a few other people pointed that out in the block review.

And yes, the "involved admin" nonsense annoyed me. I would've preferred at least to be asked for my side of the story before we had a cascade of unblock requests and one call for my sanctioning on being an "involved admin.

TL;DR: thanks for the advice, I will keep it in mind and try to square it with the reasoning I used when I did it, and come up with sommething better.

With respect, --Tznkai (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Martin J. Walker

An editor has asked for a deletion of Martin J. Walker. Since you participated in the deletion review discussion for this article as recently as March 2008, you might want to participate in the current deletion proposal. Sam Weller (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment

at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Worker.27s_comp_.22tangential.22_to_PSC_dismissal.3F. Am posting this for you and ferrylodge to get somebody from "either side". I'll be offline for the next week, so I'll trust you to implement any consensus that develops. Homunq (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When have Ferrylodge and I ever been on opposite sides of anything? :) I can look through, but I prefer to limit how many Palin-related debates I'm involved in at any given time, for my own sanity, so I cannot promise anything. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser question

You say rather assertively "Kelly is no one's sockpuppet." Has that been confirmed? Not that I think it's appropriate to start throwing around accusations without concrete evidence (like Kelly appeared to at GreekParadise's checkuser here) but let's not blind ourselves to certain possibilities. I would not be surprised in the slightest to learn that several editors involved at Sarah Palin besides GreekParadise over the last few weeks were indeed sockpuppets.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, or I should say likely, that some of the editors at Sarah Palin are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets (the same has been true at the Obama pages for quite some time). However, I see absolutely no reason to suspect that Kelly is doing so, and I tend to be overly suspicious, if anything, where sockpuppetry is concerned. Checkuser cannot prove the absolute absence of sockpuppetry—it's merely a piece of circumstantial technical evidence, though sometimes it's quite conclusive—so what you're getting is my considered opinion, nothing more or less. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Link

I provided a link at ANI. — Realist² 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kotra and myself seem to be in agreement that a restriction on sexuality articles is is the best route at this point. — Realist² 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist, that may be so. However, please do not speak for me on my behalf like you have been doing on your posts. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been given any solutions nor have I decided on any solution. Caden S (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Decision

I'm flattered by your confidence in me, but I am sort of inexperienced when it comes to meting out restrictions on users. I don't entirely understand the concept of "topic restriction" (I know basically what they are, but not how they work exactly). I also feel a bit conflicted due to my role as Adopter. So I would prefer if an uninvolved administrator or experienced user could decide instead. My basic opinion is that I would like to see some sort of solution wherein CadenS could continue to edit sexuality-related articles - in a peaceful way - but I don't know what exactly that would be. If a topic restriction is necessary, I wouldn't be opposed to it. A block I think would be inappropriate at this time. Other than that, I don't know what options are available. Could you or another experienced editor advise? Sorry to essentially toss the hot potato back to you. -kotra (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have posted a comment summarizing my view of the options available here. If you have any opinion, your comment there would be appreciated. Thanks for your past input and help in any case. -kotra (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alex Avery (researcher)

There's an IP editing this page who keeps inserting the erroneous statement that the FDA says "that there is no evidence organic foods are healthier or more nutritious". This is not supported by the reference he cites, and to the best of my knowledge the FDA has no position on organic food. The editor is also trying to pass off the "British Nutrition Foundation" as the UK equivalent of the FDA or USDA, when in fact, it's just some minor non-profit. Anyways, I'm at my 3RR limit--would you mind having a look? Yilloslime (t) 18:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought: BNF smells link astroturf[9]. Yilloslime (t) 18:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the page. Hopefully it's just a matter of a new editor unfamiliar with our verifiability requirements. If it starts to look more like a tendentious editor willfully ignoring our verifiability requirements, I'll take action. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom management of medical articles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Chiropractic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to ping you that there is a discussion going on about you and another administrator, that one I have never heard of or seen around. You might want to take a peek and comment if you feel that is necessary. This is just an FYI for you. Personally I believe more people need to be aware of this conversation. While I'm at it, SandyGeorgia, I've been following your comments there and would like to thank you for bringing up the things you have been. I agree with your comments there but I am still waiting for someone to actually respond in earnest to your comments and questions. The explanation I got to some questions are at FT2's talk page. [10] I don't frequest this board and so I am trying to understand how it all works esp. if an administrator is chosen by the arbs or if there is a different method. From my reading of the response at FT2 it seems that they do not assign and that administrators work out who is in charge of watching sanctioned articles. Now if this is the case, wouldn't there be a consensus for other administrators to work this article, not Elonka? The reason I am asking is because I don't think she will be well received at any sanctioned artlicle at this time with what has happened in the recent past. Thanks and have a good weekend, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is often hard to figure out what FT2 is saying or intending to say, while his sarcastic biting tone is less hard to follow. All I know is the whole thing could cost us dearly (in terms of articles and editors), and I shudder at the notion that ArbCom could unleash something similar on an article I care about (Autism, Asperger's, Tourette's, Lyme disease, etc.) Answers to my direct concerns about what they put in place and whether it is being effectively managed haven't been forthcoming, but that is typical ArbCom of late. If they do this on other articles, everyone who didn't speak up when this happened will have no excuse to come whining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment. I think that article probation itself is reasonable for chiropractic - there's certainly been enough bad behavior there to warrant it. Properly administered, probation should make things easier for editors like Tim and Eubulides. The ancillary issue is whether Elonka should be one of the admins enforcing the probation; I would rather see other admins involved. For a variety of reasons, I am not confident in Elonka's administrative judgement as it applies to these sorts of issues.

Regarding Martinphi's mention of my name, I appreciate your notifying me, but it's no big deal. He's welcome to his opinion, and he expressed it with reasonable civility. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, have either of you been watching what is going on at the chiropratic talk page article say in the last 2 days? If not, I think your opinions would be useful [11] this would be a good start to look at. If you use the 'history' to see the edit summaries I think you will really get the gist of things. I fear that there is going to be major fall out and soon. Just thought I'd bring this to your attentions since I know the two of you are quite busy. I've stayed away but I am finding it hard to, since I believe in civil comments and I don't think I could remain that way at this time. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy moly. Well, I sounded the alarm (although that's worse than I expected), so anything else I could add would just be, "I told you so". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm disheartened by what I see there, but I'd like to give the group of admins monitoring the article a little bit of space and time to work and see what they can accomplish. I'm not going to intervene susbtantially, for a few reasons which I won't bore you with here. The article itself actually looks quite good, except for the trainwreck of a section on "evidence basis". But I guess that's what all the fighting is about. MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth

Is Kossack suppose to be banned from all 2008 election-related articles? See [12]. Thanks, Grsz^talk 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's violated his topic ban (not to mention 3RR in the process). I see he's already been blocked for 4 days. I think this is lenient; he's well past justifying an indefinite block, but I won't overturn it at this point. If he violates his topic ban again, which applies to all election-related articles as I made clear way back when, then please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust the length of the block. I did a routine escalation from the length of the previous block, but you probably know more of the background. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it; I'm actually happy to have outside eyes on the matter since previous experience with this editor colors my judgement, perhaps. In any case, I think it would be somewhat punitive to extend the block at this point; so long as he respects the topic ban going forward, we're fine. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that on someone's list? Ant's, maybe? that if a name has "truth" in it, they will shortly be edit warring? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The following semiotic units, in any permutation within a username, should trigger a pre-emptive block for tendentiousness: "truth", "warrior", "banned", "crusader", "freedom", "justice"... also, I've noticed that the use of "NPOV" as a verb is a highly sensitive and specific marker for tendentiousness; every time I see an edit summary saying "NPOV'd a few things", I know what I'll see when I click on the diff. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Codified previously as Ray's Razor here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes!

Why I was here in the first place - your editing skilz have been requested. I am certain you aren't just hoping someone else will write the paragraph, and in fact have been cheerfully and expertly copyediting a masterpiece which will meet with universal acceptance and be immediately placed in the article by unanimous acclaim. Or something like that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I was doing: hoping someone else would write the paragraph. I am trying with marginal success to limit my involvement on anything related to Sarah Palin or the upcoming election on Wikipedia, for the sake of my own sanity. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting Wikipedia's needs ahead of your own sanity. Your sacrifice has not been in vain. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lon Horiuchi

Please clarify your reason for deletion of external links at Lon Horiuchi. Both links contain scans of pages from Soldier of Fortune magazine not currently included in Wikipedia. All other information on both pages is consistent with information already contained in the Wikipedia article. --Pascal666 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:BLP#External_links for an answer to your question. These links are not particularly encyclopedic, and more importantly, they fall well short of the high bar for including links in biographies of living people. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please

MastCell, hi, overall I have a lot of respect for you. I realize we disagreed about that indef block a few months ago, but I had a good opinion of you before that, and I continued to have a good opinion after, I just saw it as "one place where we disagreed." But are you still holding a grudge? I keep seeing you pop up into AN/ANI threads where I'm involved, with little sideswipes at me. How would you feel if I kept popping up in situations where you were trying to be an admin, and saying, "Yes, there's a problem here, but MastCell shouldn't be the one dealing with it"? I wasn't sure if you were aware you were doing this, but from my side, it appears to be becoming a pattern of (mild) sniping, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. I do value my working relationship with you, so, what can we do to improve it? --Elonka 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to choose my words carefully at AN/I to make a point which I felt was important without giving offense. I've observed that requests to de-escalate are best received when they come from editors/admins perceived as neutral or even "friendly". I've tried to put this into practice; recently, I observed a situation where I was strongly tempted to make such a request, but I knew that no matter how politely I phrased it, the mere fact that I was the one making the request would undermine the goal of de-escalation. Other editors and admins (perceived more favorably by the editor in question) stepped in, and the situation was de-escalated without my involvement. I'm not saying you are an "involved" admin in the strict definition of the word, but I am saying that if the goal is de-escalation, another messenger would be more effective. That's not meant as a swipe at you, but as a pragmatic approach to dispute resolution.

I'm sorry you perceive that I'm holding a grudge or sniping at you; that is not my intention. I understand that it's nearly impossible to administrate a complex dispute effectively with someone second-guessing your every move. A few threads above on my talk page, in discussion about the situation at Talk:Chiropractic, I advocated giving you and the other admins there more breathing room to try and fix things.

In a more general sense, I do have some concerns which I've expressed in various venues, perhaps not as directly as I ought. I think that your approach is sometimes overly content-agnostic, and creates a situation where a legalistic "equality" of viewpoints and accounts takes precedence over the project's goal of creating a serious, respected reference work. That's simply my opinion; the situation with Jagz was a significant, but not the only, contributor to it. On some level, this is just a philosophical difference between our approaches to Wikipedia, not a matter where one of us is "right" and the other "wrong". I do think that this philosophical difference is at the root of the fact that we've found ourselves on different sides of several discussions. My concern about this issue is the basis for my comment at an earlier AN/I that I would prefer other admins to be (co-)involved in the chiropractic situation.

I will put all my cards on the table, though: I was deeply disappointed by your actions surrounding the recall issue. I understand the reasons for your decision not to submit to reconfirmation, but I don't agree with them. I don't know if it would be productive to rehash the details at this point; that horse has been beaten to within an inch of its life, and it may be better for all of us to move on.

I will make an effort to double-check myself before contributing to a discussion in which you're involved, to avoid furthering a situation in which we are perceived (and perceive each other) as antagonists. I respect you and I think you do good work in many ways. While I don't agree with your approach in several complex areas, that difference of opinion can be handled with mutual respect and civility. I appreciate you sharing your concern directly with me; I will make a more conscious effort to avoid jumping in where my presence might be inflammatory. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply, I do appreciate it. Though we do have philosophical differences in some areas of Wiki-management, there are many other areas where we agree, and one of those is that "clearing the air" can be a useful exercise, when the participants are emotionally mature enough to be able to deal with it. So thanks.

For what it's worth, I do listen carefully to everything you say, whether on a talkpage or in an RfC. I agree we have key differences of approach. To paint with a broad brush, I think that my philosophy is more of, "when there is disruption, warn and block equally", and yours is more of a "When there is disruption, give allowances to the good editors, and block the fringe theorists as quickly as possible." Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. A strength of yours, is that when editors are correctly identified, it can empower the "good" editors, and minimize the disruption from the "bad" ones. A weakness of yours, is that some good editors may be incorrectly judged as "bad", and expelled from the project too quickly, while some "good" editors may continue acting out with a perception of impunity, which may antagonize away other editors simply by causing an unpleasant environment. However, my approach definitely has its weaknesses too: "bad" editors may be kept around a bit longer, as I give them chances to improve, and when one of them not only doesn't improve, but blows up in a spectacular way, it brings out all the "I told you so" voices. A strength of my approach though, is that sometimes weak editors do become stronger editors with a bit of patience and tutelage. I'd like to think that I have far more successes than failures. I think another strength of my approach, is that sometimes enforcing a fair "treat everyone equally" environment is exactly the structure that certain longrunning disputes really need, in order to get everyone to calm down. But I do understand that to someone who is not familiar with my particular style, when they see me issuing gentle cautions to editors A, B, C, and D, they may be thinking, "Well of course, A & B were good editors and deserved gentle cautions, while C & D are trolls, why is she bothering to be gentle with them??" So from my point of view, I'm treating all equally, but from another point of view, I could see that I'd be perceived as showing appalling judgment half the time! Whereas another outside observer, seeing your approach, where you ignore A&B, but just warn C&D, might be genuinely bewildered as to why you're warning one group of editors, and ignoring what appears to be identical bad behavior from others. So they might feel that you were enabling a team, which could lead to more of the "cabal" perceptions. Neither method is perfect, and we all have to find our own styles. Where we run into trouble though, is if I start publicly stating, "I don't trust MastCell's administrative judgment," or you say, "I don't trust Elonka's judgment." When it's admins criticizing admins in a public forum, I can't see that as good for the project, especially when it's "chatter behind someone's back." So please, if you have a problem with something I'm doing, just c'mon over and tell me. The door to my talkpage is open, and I'm accessible via a wide variety of other means.

I do want to disagree with you on one other item, which is where you said that you'll try to avoid jumping into discussions where I'm involved. And I'm going to say no, I want you to jump in!  :) I greatly value your opinion, so if you see an issue where you feel you could help by offering a comment, by all means do so. However, just as with articles, where we say, "comment on the content, and not the contributor", I think I'd prefer if you focused on commenting on the dispute, and not me in particular. For example, with the current ANI thread, I would have no trouble with you saying, "Perhaps the situation might be helped if other admins with whom the disruptive editor is not familiar, expressed concerns." Does that make sense?

Lastly, aside from the issue of whether or not you trust me, could you perhaps make a suggestion that's more behavior-based? Is there something specific that I do, which you dislike? And what would you like me to do differently? I'm not saying I'll do it, but again, I find that specific behavior-based constructive suggestions are usually more effective than comments based on a more vague notion of someone's judgment, or what they might or might not be thinking or feeling. Anyway, thanks again, and I look forward to continuing our discussion and working things out, in an atmosphere of mutual respect... --Elonka 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if either of you think my commenting here is inappropriate. However, I see many clear differences in approach. Elonka feels that admins should be treated differently than other editors (see above). She feels that editors involved in a dispute should all be treated equally, regardless of their history in the dispute. She has great difficulty assuming good faith when someone disagrees with her (see above). And finally, Elonka backs her "philisophical differences" with bans and blocks. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I do not think that admins should be treated differently: I think they have a responsibility to act differently, meaning that it is essential that they set an excellent standard of behavior. When a typical editor acts in an uncivil manner, that's one thing. When an admin acts in an uncivil manner, it can do a lot more damage. As for how I treat people who disagree with me, it often matters how they disagree. I am not assuming bad faith on the part of MastCell, as should be easily seen by this very thread. --Elonka 04:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Elonka treats admins differently from other editors, and requires that editors treat admins differently from other editors on threat of blocks or bans.

I feel Elonka has demonstrated a failure to follow AGF in the discussion above in her approach to MastCell. "But are you still holding a grudge?" is clearly not assuming good faith.

At least we appear to agree that Elonka does not look at the history of an editor in determining how to properly evaluate their behavior in a dispute, and that she backs her personal interpretations of policies and guidelines with bans and blocks, rather than discussion, dispute resolution, and deferral to accepted consensus. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, do you share Ronz's opinion? --Elonka 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, is it a policy of yours to accuse any admin that you happen to cross paths with of stalking you (in various shades and degrees thereof)? I'm curious as it seems that you have been jumping on them over the last few weeks and pretty much ignoring their responses. Shot info (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I respectfully ask that people stop commenting here for the moment? I'd like to respond, but I don't have the necessary time or energy at the moment. For the record, I'm not offended by Elonka's questions or comments above, and I appreciate her willingness to address her concerns to me directly and forthrightly. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

It's freaking out us civilians. Is this a new first-of-the-month tradition? Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin - 'Politicle Positions' section

Hi MastCell- Nice work on the Palin 'reception' section. I would appreciate your opinion on my comments on the 'Political Positions' section: [[13]] Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I will take a look, though I made a pledge to limit my involvement on any pages relating to Sarah Palin or the upcoming election for my own mental health. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni

Giovanni33 = User:66.57.44.247. WP:DUCK. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK; maybe it's not him; but the user could undoubtably use a block for incivility, blatant vandalism, etc. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt it's G33, but someone else already blocked the IP. They've got a long history of unconstructive editing and the IP appears somewhat static, so if the issue recurs a longer block would be reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

AS

Asperger syndrome is getting hit with a lot of unsourced, poorly sourced and IP vandalism edits; as soon as I have time (heavy sigh), I'm going to go look through the usual suspects (off-Wiki message boards) for canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for 72 hours to give everyone a brief respite and bring things over to the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Urine therapy

Can you tell me why you removed the link to MateriaEtherica Urine page [14]Ref: [15] john (talk)

I cited our guideline on external links in my edit summary. The site in question contains unverifiable research, it is heavily promotional, and most importantly it is not encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it is magic pee. Which cures. Something. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with people who think pee is magic. I'm just not psyched about people who try to pretend it's supported by scientific evidence. Then again, when penicillin was first produced, there was so much demand and so little supply that patients' urine was actually collected after treatment and the excreted penicillin was recovered and re-used. Somehow, I don't think that's what materiaetherica.com has in mind by "urine therapy", though.

Incidentally, I think the lead of urine therapy is a classic of Wikipedia nuttiness. It states: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence of medical benefit from drinking urine"... as if drinking urine is an intuitively appealing idea but the eggheads at the NIH haven't gotten around to providing conclusive proof of its obvious benefits yet. Then our article goes on to say that despite the lack of evidence for urine therapy, "the main chemical component of urine, urea, has many well known commercial and medical uses." Yeah—it's a great fertilizer and explosive component, and it's used to scrub powerplant emissions, and it's occasionally used topically to hydrate the skin. Our article makes it sound like a short and obvious jump from those uses to pee-drinking. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any better now? I don't know much about the subject, but it didn't take a refined eye to catch what I removed. Avruch ^T 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I think that's an improvement. I haven't been working on it, really, other than to prune the external links occasionally. I think one could write an interesting article on the history of urine therapy, but I don't have those sources at my fingertips and I've been occupied elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I often make a joke about "drinking camel urine" will cure cancer as a ridiculous anecdote about bad science. I didn't know drinking pee was a real CAM therapy. Sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You lead a sheltered life. There is not only magic pee, there is magic water, magic poo, although that's a little out of date... all kinds of magic stuffs which Cure. Actually, poo was used more recently than that link, for asthmatics, but I cannot find it here in WP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I swear, I clean up one article, and another 12 rear their ugly heads around here. I know there's a lot of editors who deal with medical articles, but how many of those attack these bad articles. I get a feeling there's about 5 of us, and 4 of those are like me--a bit cranky. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

KC: poo is not magic. It is evidence-based medicine for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. See PMID 12594638, but not over lunch. I really hope you have access to the full text of this article, because it is remarkable. Note that the patients were "uniformly receptive" to the idea of "stool transplants", and none objected on aesthetic grounds, according to the authors. They reported a 94% "cure" rate and "only" 2 deaths. Incidentally, I presented this article to my colleagues at a journal club. The response was memorable. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be impressed with your knowledge, were I not so revolted. I was going to say something mildly witty, sadly asking "poo NOT magic?" but then I followed the link. I may vomit. Vomit, btw, is not magic, and I give advance warning I will not follow any link which purports to show that it is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

People volunteered for this study? I'm not sure I'd volunteer for the nasogastric tube, let alone poo being forced into my stomach. Of course, I suspect you can't taste or smell it. Still, I'm sufficiently appalled that I'm following KC's lead and not following any links you leave anywhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only did people volunteer for the study, but they sought it out, to the point of travelling to Duluth, Minnesota for the procedure. The 19 patients were referred to the study's lead author specifically for a stool transplant. But then, as a wise man once wrote, "Every society gets the Duluth that it deserves." MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Gore Vidal reference. How very urbane of you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New magic! Magic white powder - no, its not as much fun as you think, and its been reverted as OR from a SPA troll, but it fits the qualifications for magic cures. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but apparently it only works on "the white tumors". Any sort of coloration, and the method is no good. They're very upfront about its limitations. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the SPA really believes in this stuff. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I automatically deduct 15 points of presumed IQ for use of "u" to mean "you." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Text messaging has destroyed the writing skills of a generation of kids. My parents made me go to a Catholic School when we lived in a certain oppressive state...the brothers were not so nice when I misspelled a word. And given the fact that I was personally responsible for the death of Jesus, it was even worse. LOL. Oh I digress. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the original poster of this thread under arbcon? [16]? --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW

You do realize he's one of the good guys around here. He fights cruft in areas that usually doesn't cross our paths, petroleum, oil and chemistry. It's kind of odd that the block was made only six minutes after I made a request to him to take a scientific look at Psychic, which has degenerated into a science vs. pseudoscience battle. I thought a fresh eye could help the discussion get unstuck, but he got blocked. Just kind of curious about the chain of events. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He looks like a very solid editor. That's one reason I advocated an unblock. My experience is that the fastest way to get a good editor like NJGW back to making good edits is to handle things in a no-fault manner. Don't coerce an apology from him, and don't rake Elonka over the coals - just unblock him, with an agreement to take a short break from the specific article in question, and get back to work. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Frustrating is all I can say. Maybe Boris can ask him to help translate the collected works of Lenin into Klingon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Lenin would probably have liked the Klingons and their willingness to dispense with what Trotsky famously called "this Quaker-papist nonsense about the sanctity of human life." MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to go read my Star Trek canon, but I believe that Gene Roddenberry intended the Klingons to represent the Soviets. And how do you know so much about communism? You know too much about it. KGB? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No further comment. I'm allergic to polonium-210. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

interesting argument[17] at Wikipedia:AN#Block_review_needed – apparently I'm an involved editor so can't say boo, but Elonka seems to be showing a close interest in some aspects.[18] All very odd. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Smoking cessation

Hi MastCell... any chance of a semi-protect on this article... it's been subject to WP:EL violations pretty constantly from months ago now, and often the same links, suggesting a concerted effort from one or two people using various IP's, and the occasional new user. No matter the rationale given for removeal, they get re-inserted. Crimsone (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be enough recent activity to justify a short semiprotection. In the long term, it'll probably just be a matter of vigilance; the topic is, unfortunately, a spam magnet. If it kicks up again to the point where it's getting hit multiple times per day, let me know and I'll extend the semiprotection. Thanks for your work on keeping it as spam-free as possible. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Friendly stalking

Diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I crazy?

As an uninvolved admin whose opinion I greatly respect, I wonder if you can tell me, honestly, if I'm the wrong here. There's lots ugly background in this thread, this thread, and this thread, too, and if you care to dig through that, I'd be curious to know whether you think I'm way off base. But I suspect you don't, and I don't blame you for it. The first link though, that one stands on its own pretty well, and I'd really appreciate your opinion. The stress to reward ratio for that article is a well into the not-worth-it regime for me, but before I unwatchlist it, I'd love an outside opinion. Yilloslime (t) 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not in the wrong. You have a couple of options: one is to get outside input from sane editors, via an RfC or a request at the Aviation WikiProject. The other is to unwatch the page for your own sanity. Given the tenor of discussion and the low stakes involved, I'd probably advocate the latter.

People who are dedicated to defending unsourced content via personal attacks can quickly make this place a chore rather than a pleasure. Look: this speaks for itself. At a brief glance, I'm seeing that this editor has been blocked 15 times for edit-warring. Fifteen times. It looks like TimVickers chimed in, so perhaps things will improve; I'm happy to keep an eye on it, but consider whether it's worth your time to deal with this sort of annoyance. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! You've made me feel a lot better. I hear what you are saying about whether it's worth the annoyance. I've been teetering on clicking "unwatch", but it's a bit like a car accident, or a Sarah Palin speach—I just can't look away. Yilloslime (t) 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You betcha! Elitist. :) MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there an elitist user box? If not I might have to make one. Yilloslime (t) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be overly "divisive" or "uncivil" to add this to my userpage? Yilloslime (t) 05:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Only time will tell. :) I found this distressed conservative's take on the subject interesting. I mean, really: if Mitt Romney is calling you an elitist and posing as a champion of the common man, words have lost their meaning.

On a related note, I've found myself pondering the odd code phrases the Republicans have chosen to employ this time around. It could be a coincidence that Palin's quote in praise of small towns was lifted (unacknowledged) from a notorious racist and anti-Semite. It could be that when Mitt Romney rails against "eastern elites", he's just unaware that the phrase is a time-honored anti-Semitic trope. Maybe when Palin quoted Reagan's "a time when Americans were free", she honestly thought he was talking about the cold war, rather than recording a radio ad against that demonic tool of world communism known as Medicare. I guess coincidences happen. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: You Me At Six Unprotection

Cheers mate! Page created with the data from my userpage workspace. Thanks for the help =] Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't this really have gone through DRV to be restored? I put it though AFD just a few months ago, and it was being so chronically recreated we had to salt it. I agree that it squeaks past WP:MUSIC now, so I'm not going to raise a fuss ... just want to know.—Kww(talk) 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered whether to send it to WP:DRV, which would be the letter-of-the-law thing to do. In the end, since it looked like a good-faith attempt to build a solid article, and since the article appeared to pass WP:MUSIC, I figured I'd dispense with an unecessary step of bureaucracy in the interest of adding now-encyclopedic content. But it was just a judgement call; some admins would probably send it to DRV. In any case, if you (or anyone) question whether it actually meets WP:MUSIC, I'll be happy to send it over there or go through a more formal opinion-gathering process. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth - violation of topic ban

I just wanted to give you a heads-up that Kossack4Truth has begun violating his Barack Obama-related topic ban. I've reverted the two edits he made to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, but you might want to monitor the situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no violation. ACORN is a community organization that registers voters. Topic ban applies to presidential campaign and articles related to Barack Obama. This article is only peripherally related to either of those two topic areas. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)