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)

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. [1] 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 [2] 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 [3]. 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: [[4]] 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 [5]Ref: [6] 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)

Speaking of Gore Vidal, he is responsible for my favorite television moment ever, in which he provoked William F. Buckley to the point that Buckley called him a "queer" and threatened to "sock him in the face". It's all on the YouTube; I insist you view it (and I promise it does not link to Rick Astley). MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 16 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? [7]? --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

They are two different people who share many POV. -- Fyslee / talk 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you, my sincere apologies to this editor. It was Whateto/john and the POV talked about and made a bad conclusion. Again, please except my apology for my error. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say my colleagues at a journal club does that mean you work for a medical journal? john (talk)

Moi? I'm a paid servant of Paul Offit. I thought the word was out. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised, but you avoided my question. john (talk)

Why, yes... yes I did. Have a nice day. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've personally decided to prostitute myself to anyone who's willing to pay. Big Pharm, Big Oil, the Democratic Party, and the Florida Marlins are all paying me $2.00/hour to edit here. I hope you're doing as well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:49, 16 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[8] 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.[9] 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)

Blocked. Detail at User Talk:Kossack4Truth. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your Comment

Hi! You recently left a note requesting I not "restore" my comments. My post was a clarification:

Ronz it is a request for information because we do not understand your objection. It makes no comment in re to AGF. We can't address your tag if we don't understand what is being tagged.

I'm sorry if you feel my comment may require banning from the community. I thought it was an acceptable clarification of an editors possible misunderstanding of my position..76.238.22.59 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you've added a series of comments to User Talk:Ronz, all of which have been removed by Ronz. That seems like a clear indication that he wants to disengage. Like I mentioned on your talk page, it's best to respect that wish and seek outside input to move things forward. And yes, if you keep restoring comments after he's removed them, that would be grounds for a temporary block from editing Wikipedia, but I first wanted to notify you and ask you to consider other approaches. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz removed one comment. I posted my clarification that I quoted above. He then removed that. You then placed your warning of Administrative Action on my talk page. I don't believe my single post reaching out to him justified the threat of sanction. but that's just my opinion, it is not I that am the judge or enforcer. 76.238.22.59 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Giannini vandal

Odd case (link), some of the references checked out, others seemed to have been invented. I did a global search for "AJ Giannini" and deleted or replaced many of the references. I doubt if I got all of them. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the legwork. I admit to finding a few hoaxes in there and pulling the trigger, but I'm glad you went through to address the underlying issue. I'll go through the contribs tomorrow as well with PubMed and see if I can catch any others. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ones I could verify I replaced with the cite journal template, which should narrow your field a bit. Unfortunately some of the citations only used partial titles, which will make this a lot more difficult, eg this ref originally just had the title of "Tangential symbols" Tim Vickers (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've talked to this person for a while on their talkpage (User talk:66.251.199.141) and think they were not intending to add hoax information, they were just careless in citing titles and over-extending their sources. I think I'd recommend AGF and lifting the block. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Can you please provide some guidance at the McCain article. It pertains to the comment that I attempted to submit earlier today at the Sarah Palin article. I guess I knew that it didnt belong there (Palin) but I wanted to make my point to the editors there before moving it. I placed it at McCain and it lasted all of 5 minutes before it was removed. It was the "whip his ass" thing. I'm still trying to make heads or tails out of all the WP:BLP and the rest. While it may appear as an attempt to cause trouble, it was most definitely not. It was from my heart...from my religion. I am chaallenged to fight prejudice where I find it. If it happens to be in the mis-voicings of a candidate for President, so be it. Thanks for your time. --Buster7 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WFKU article deletion

Mastcell I am not so sure my post about my station was total blatant advertising, or if it was i would like to know how to phrase it properly so that i am indexed by wikipedia.

I am arguing with your deletion on the grounds that

advertising for a free product is not advertising its a donation

2nd it has nothing to do with this, it is appeal to the better side of your nature,

it has to do with the listing under electroclash, a type of music. Many of the people in bands on my old record company eindie (not listed or mentioned in wikipedia) tell me that i created electroclash, some of them were bought out from under me by larry Tee the person who wikipedia claims is responsible for creating electroclash

I am not the sort of ham that gives a crap about all that I don't care weather the Larry Tee came up with the word, or weather it was me, i think it was probably dandrogynous (a DJ on my station)

but i do want to be recognized as a radio station

please do me the favor and undelete my article

if you think it an advertisement, at least its not false

I do what i say and say what i mean.

If not at least advise me on who should create the article and what they should write so that it is neutral or at least has a more of a neutral feel too it perhaps send me a link to someone else's post of a radio station?

thank you

Jacob Bouchard jacob.bouchard_at_gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfku (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There were two issues: one was that the article was promotional. "Advertising" may not be the best word, since as you note it generally refers to for-profit activities. This is an encyclopedia, so promotional material of any kind, no matter what for, is inappropriate. Secondly, the article appeared to be lifted from a copyrighted website, which violates our licensing terms. Content here needs to be freely available and modifiable, so we cannot cut and paste large chunks of copyrighted text.

I'd like to ask you to take a look at some of Wikipedia's policies. I'd recommend starting with the ones on promotional material and conflict of interest. It's also worth looking at the policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, and appropriate sourcing.

To put them in a nutshell, the article should rely on mtaerial from independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Newspaper coverage is generally a good place to start, as are any awards of substance. If an organization or product lacks any mention in these sorts of independent, reliable sources, then it is likely not sufficiently notable to warrant an article here on Wikipedia. I hope that's helpful. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill

Hi Mastcell. I noticed that twice now you've taken out some references and comments in the Gwen Ifill article. I don't mind you editing that section, but when you take out the controversy over the 2004 debate and just leave one analyst's view that it was a good job, that seems kind of bogus. Also, I understand there can be differences of opinion about how to present information, but you keep trying to rewrite the article as if only right wing extremists and one or two analysts criticized Ifill over the 2008 conflict of interest issue. But that's simply not the case, and that's why there were two citations there. It would be EASY to find more. I would hope you could put this information back in and try to edit down another way if you think there's too much, rather than minimizing the controversy. Thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

The sources all indicate that most of the criticism came from partisan outlets, though some came from more independent sources. That was the gist of my edit. It seems bogus to suggest that there was a huge, generalized, spontaneous outcry about Ifill when the sources make clear that it was largely confined to the right-wing blogosphere. As to 2004, the Washington Post says that the "consensus was that she acquitted herself well." Describing that consensus seems more relevant than picking out and highlighting a two-line exchange, in terms of accurately and responsibly summarizing the source.

I'd suggest gathering independent, reliable sources on the article talk page. I'm happy to go where the sources lead - if they indicate widespread non-partisan criticism of Ifill, then I'll go there. The sources I'm seeing paint a quite different picture, yet they seem to be shoehorned to fit an editorial point. MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as sticking to the facts, nothing in the article says there was a "huge" outcry, so let's not set up straw men. Certainly there was notable criticism from multiple sources on the issues mentioned in the article. I have no problem, as I've noted again and again, with these sections being consolidated, but I am opposed to partisan editors doing a whitewash. And by the way the issues and objections to Ifill's conduct don't have to be non-partisan to be included, and in fact many non-partisan analysts did object including the one cited in the article, as well as Juan Williams and at least one news anchor. You suggest I gather sources, and yet you keep taking the refs I've included in the article out. Kinda makes me go hmmmmm... Personally, I thought PBS was a pretty good source.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry; do you think that referring to me as a "partisan editor doing a whitewash" is likely to move things forward? We are on the same page about some things; for instance, I agree that an outcry does not need to be non-partisan to be notable. I simply object to portraying largely partisan criticism as if it were non-partisan. There were non-partisan critics, for example the person from the Poynter Institute, and they are mentioned in the article.

I believe the PBS piece was being misused in a fairly significant fashion. If you're referring to the PBS ombudsman piece, he specifically defended Ifill against "personal attacks" by noting that she was doing her job as a journalist - yet your preferred text quotes only the handful of angry letters received rather than the ombudsman's actual response. That's not the way to use a source.

You mentioned that you object to "partisan editors doing a whitewash". Here's what I object to: attempts to turn biographical articles into thinly disguised coatracks for political campaign talking points. This is a biography of Gwen Ifill. If you want to go on about the "controversy" surrounding these debates, then the debate articles might be more appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well on the one hand you want to cut out this information, and on the other hand you seem to be asking for more sources. Seems a bit self-contradictory to me. And yes, there is a lot of partisan editing going on all over Wikipedia, or haven't you noticed. The notability of a quote in that story from someone saying Ifill did a "good job" is laughable, however you want to spin it. The controversy over Ifill questioning whether Palin could be a VP with five kids, her conflict of interest, and the perception of bias in her coverage of the conventions is all notable with lots of good sources. I suggest the same compromise I have always suggested, which is to consolidate this material without taking one side of it out and creating a biased puff piece. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I've noticed quite a few editors whose only contributions to the encyclopedia involve the addition or promotion of partisan talking points on the political topic du jour. Interesting you should bring that up.

Gwen Ifill has had a long and distinguished career as a journalist, including a generally acclaimed role as moderator of two Vice-Presidential debates. The fact that the conservative blogosphere, and some independent analysts, were temporarily abuzz about her book is notable, but it is hardly the central aspect of her biography.

As to sources, I don't see why it's "laughable" to quote the Washington Post conclusion that the debate was well-moderated, but yet it's just fine to amplify a specific incident noted in that article to push an editorial viewpoint about Ifill's "bias". In any case, this discussion is best continued at Talk:Gwen Ifill and perhaps it's time to solicit outside input. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've offered a compromise position in which we consolidate the material in question, I find it strange that you seem to suggest I am a partisan editor and that I want to "amplify a specific incident noted in that article to push an editorial viewpoint about Ifill's 'bias'". I have simply repeated again and again that the incidents are notable and deserve inclusion in the article. Seems fair enough to me, but if you want to fight a straw man and refuse to compromise that's certainly you prerogative. See you on the article in question.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Ferbish (talk · contribs)

Bears watching. One of their first edits was to add spam links to a commercially available immunoassay. Seems to also be pushing some stuff at Talk:Benign prostatic hyperplasia. Anyways, just a heads up, since you'll be bored for a few days until the World Series starts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

May just need some pointers about promotional material here. Will keep an eye out. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I can take a look, but dermatology is outside both my training and my main interests, so I can't promise too much. Let me know what I can do. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Rath

Is there still a POV problem here, or should the template now be removed. There has been no editing or comment for a while now. Best, Verbal chat 15:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be fine with me to remove the template. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Brain

... is at FAC, and it has one of those huge protection templates ... I don't know the correct terminology for this, but can you switch it to the less intrusive version ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already got it. For future reference, you just add |small=yes to the semiprotection template. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can a non-admin do that, too? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it's only semi-protected. If the page is fully protected, then only admins can make any edit there. Of course, the easiest solution is just to become an admin yourself, and then you won't even notice when you're illegaly editing a protected page... MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

When can we nom you, Sandy? :) ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Myko San - Health from Mushrooms

Hi Mastcell. I'm new here (so please - no biting :) ) and I have some questions regarding your recent editing operations on 'Dr Myko San...' article. I noticed that you've removed some sections of the aforementioned article, but some of the reasoning behind it alludes me, even after a thorough read of sections related to the stated grounds for removal. In order to improve the article I'd like you to verify and further develop your reasons for editing of sections I find questionable and give the advice you think might help. Let me remind you. On October 17, you removed the 'See also' section of the page. As seen on History page of the article: 17:48, 17 October 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) (8,241 bytes) (trim "see also" linkfarm). Please check the version on that date. The reason I included those 'key words' was that additional related information is available in these articles and removing them reduces the informational value of the article in question. In my opinion, the value of these carefully chosen 'inter-wiki links' (especially those on medicinal mushrooms, some notable species, beta-glucans and krestin) is substantial for anyone researching this field – either casually and in a more detailed approach - and are justifiable for that very reason. Please research and review your editing criteria in this case and share your thoughts on that issue. Lets proceed now to another issue, where I'm not really sure either. 17:48, 17 October 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) (8,604 bytes) (→External links: per WP:EL) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Non-English-language_sites linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following case: when the web page contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation. Actually both of these conditions are met in each of the two Croatian-language links, which should definitely be included (but marked correctly with a language icon, as was not the case). The IMMC4 link was misprinted since the first version, but should be excluded as it is not specific enough to the subject of this article, as should be the link to the research papers, as that website requires registration. In that regard the removal of these links improves the quality of the article and is in keeping with Wikipedia policies, but please review the need and justification for the removal of the other external links. One last (but major) gripe... I do not understand this at all: 17:47, 17 October 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) (9,077 bytes) (per WP:NOT#INFO and commonsense- this is ridiculous). What is this directed at? The tone of this sounds disruptive to me but I may have misunderstood, so please clarify. Is that related to the flag that the article is written like an advertisement or something else completely? Please bring to my attention the parts that should be rewritten in your opinion, if any, to adhere to the Wikipedia standards better, as I cannot readily recognize them from the article. Thanks for all your help in making this article as good as possible. Please excuse the formatting, hopefully you'll have little trouble reading this.Yamabushi1981 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

May I take your absence of reply to mean that you agree with everything I said and restore the previous state of the article? Yamabushi1981 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't. Let me look at it again. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

lol

you shouldn't have undone that edit on Martin's page - damned funny... --Ludwigs2 04:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at way too much nonsense on Wikipedia of late, as a result of a recent resolution to go back to editing articles and working on content. Consequently, I'm in a somewhat snappish mood. I thought my comment was likely to cause offense or be read as belittling - hence the removal - but I'm glad you appreciated it... :) MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy Medicine

Hello. Could you look at Talk:Energy medicine#Versus Quantum Healing and comment. You deleted a section. I've commented on the deleted section with the intention of restoring it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented at the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Good points. I gave a longer reply on the talk page. Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of dermatology articles on Wikipedia, input wanted

Hey MastCell. Kilbad (talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jagz

I'm sorry that even have this page on my watchlist, but I do watch every racist, neo-nazi editor that crosses my path on this project. First, his talk page should be protected. He is attacking good faith editors. Second, Elonka is intimating that he could be unblocked. That is not acceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that his talk page should be protected. He can carry on his correspondence with Elonka off-wiki, and can also pursue an unblock off-wiki should he wish to. I consider his use of his talk page entirely inappropriate for a banned editor, or even an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. I am considering whether to go ahead with this, and had been prior to your note, though I appreciate the reminder. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) MastCell, sorry, but I disagree with the page protection. Yes, Jagz was commenting about Mathsci,[10] but Mathsci was also commenting about Jagz![11] It doesn't make sense to me to muzzle one editor, and let another one continue to make the same types of comments. It is essential that administrators not be perceived as favoring one "side" in a dispute, and I am very concerned that you may not be exercising your tools from a position of neutrality here. Please, will you consider unprotecting the page, and allowing other admins to deal with this situation? --Elonka 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't view this as "muzzling" one side of a two-way dispute. That's a false equivalence. Jagz is indefinitely blocked and, arguably, banned. It is not "muzzling" to implement or enforce a ban. Mathsci has his own issues and, should he warrant administrative sanction, there are a number of people including at least two current/former ArbCom members watching him closely. At the moment, however, he is not blocked or banned. He has the right to post comments here, and Jagz has forfeited that right.

I've considered the protection and I continue to think that it's appropriate, for the reasons I described on your talk page. I am willing to let "other admins" deal with the situation - but "other admins" (not I) have blocked Jagz, blocked his abusive sock, and turned down 3 unblock requests and an ArbCom appeal. If by "other admins" you're referring to yourself, then I'm happy for you to work with Jagz - but the talkpage protection doesn't prevent that.

As I said, if you'd like, I will submit this action to WP:AN/I for feedback. If there is a consensus that I've erred, then I will unprotect the page. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference. Mattsci is a good-faith, respected editor. Jagz is a racist, Neo-Nazi with an agenda. Elonka's support of Jagz is troubling. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I appreciate your viewpoint, but let's try to keep the temperature here as low as possible. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Jagz can still pursue his appeal, and communicate using email. I support the protection of the page as further edits could only inflame the situation. Jagz was also commenting to make Elonka aware of a comment on her own talk page, and was failing to AGF in his comment. His edits under his previous sock were disruptive. The comments are, to my mind, not of the same type, as MathSci was participating in a continuing discussion of relevance to him, whereas Jagz was just trying to stir the pot and is a blocked user. It seems to me that many people are "involved" and possibly not neutral here. Of course, I'm not an admin, and wasn't aware of Jagz until his FatCigar persona. Verbal chat 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, please, can this just be a conversation between me and MastCell for now? MastCell, would you support that? --Elonka 17:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. My concern here, MastCell, is that we have two admins who are primarily dealing with Jagz, you and myself. Per Wikipedia's policy on consensus and multiple other admin policies, you and I (and any other admins who wish to participate right now) should be able to discuss this rationally, and come to an agreement on how to deal with this user. For example, see WP:UNBLOCK: "Editors with administrator access will strongly avoid wheel warring, that is, overriding each other's decisions, in almost all cases, since this is in itself a serious breach of administrator policy. For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached." I was in a conversation with Jagz on his talkpage, and then you came along and protected the page so that I can no longer converse on his talkpage. I disagree with this action. Turn it around and think about how you would feel, if you were discussing things with a blocked user on their talkpage, then that user made a comment which you didn't think was that bad, and suddenly another admin protected the talkpage to truncate the conversation? Would you see that as a collegial way to act? Don't get me wrong, I am in agreement with you that Jagz's behavior is not entirely helpful right now. But I am not seeing the urgency here that requires protection of his talkpage in mid-conversation. --Elonka 17:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I view it as a straw that broke the camel's back. He's been continually abusing whatever privileges he's had, including the ability to edit his talk page. He's been cut quite a bit of slack, abused it, and at some point enough is enough. I apologize for interrupting your discussion, but I'd encourage you to continue it via email - the talk page is not the only venue for such discussion.

I feel there is actually much more consensus here than you do, perhaps. I don't see this as a disagreement between the two of us. At least 4 or 5 other admins have reviewed Jagz' behavior and his unblock requests, not to mention his ArbCom appeal which I believe has been reviewed. In other words, I see quite a few experienced admins who have concluded that the project is better off without Jagz' participation, and I see one experienced admin (yourself) who feels otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong - only asking you to recognize that I'm not totally out on a limb or judging things unilaterally here.

I apologize for interrupting your conversation with Jagz. I recognized when I protected that page that you might feel I had acted precipitously or rudely. I value collegiality and I didn't take the action lightly. In the end, while I value a collegial relationship with you (as with any active editor or admin), there is a bigger picture. I also value the right of other, unsanctioned users to edit without baiting and sniping from banned users. Jagz' behavior has been "not entirely helpful" for a long time now, and at some point we have to acknowledge that we have limited volunteer time and goodwill and recognize diminishing returns. It's unfortunate that Jagz got mixed messages about the acceptability of his actions, but he's been over the line - and continually testing it - for long enough now that it can't be surprising to think that enough is enough. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say that you believe his ArbCom appeal has been reviewed, what are you basing this on? Also, I'm having a lot of trouble following your logic here in terms of which users that you are censuring. You protected Jagz's page, but said nothing to Mathsci about his comment, nor did you caution Orangemarlin about his comment, which was a pretty blatant violation of NPA.[12] Instead, you told him that you "appreciated his viewpoint"?? That's one of the problems that I have with this situation, is that I feel that Jagz is being ejected from the project for mild behavior, while others with severe behavior don't even get a slap on the wrist. --Elonka 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification, is it your view that Jagz's behavior is "mild" compared to that of Mathsci and Orangemarlin? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I could go into a lot of detail with diffs, but in a nutshell: Yes. --Elonka 18:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

← As I said, I didn't view Mathsci's comment as particularly outrageous and I think you're creating a false equivalence between an active editor and a banned one. An indefinitely blocked or banned editor does not have the same latitude to comment here as an active, unrestricted editor.

I thought Orangemarlin's comment was inappropriate and unhelpful. I asked him, here, to tone things down. I expressed myself more fully in an email I sent him simultaneously, as I think sometimes de-escalation is handled more effectively off-wiki. That was my judgement on how to best handle the situation.

From the perspective of creating a serious, respectable reference work - which I take to be Wikipedia's ultimate goal - I consider Jagz' behavior quite damaging. Incivility and personal attacks are bad, absolutely - but tendentious abuse of this site to advocate an agenda, in a way which harms the ultimate goal I mentioned, is also bad, though not always as easy to encapsulate. Viewed from that perspective, Jagz' behavior was certainly not "mild". MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not view Mathsci's statement as particularly outrageous, either. I felt the same way about Jagz's statement. Both comments were a bit unhelpful, but neither, in my view, deserved an immediate block or page protection. Also, to be clear, Jagz is not banned. He is blocked. There is a major difference, see WP:BAN. As for email, I tend not to like email communications, because my email queue is already overloaded, and I tend to miss things in immediate back and forth communications, so I prefer either on-wiki communications, or IMs. Anyway, going forward, if Jagz were to apologize for his past actions, and explain his sockpuppetry, would you support an unblock? --Elonka 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAN is a bit vague, but probably not worth arguing over. As far as unblocking Jagz, he's dug himself a huge hole as far as I'm concerned. I can't categorically say I'd never support an unblock, but it's hard to envision a scenario where I would at this point. It would likely take more than an apology - I seriously doubt he feels he's done anything wrong, so an apology would be at best insincere capitulation to an outside demand. Likewise, he had a chance to explain his sockpuppetry and instead lied about it and pretended he had no idea what people were talking about, so "explaining" it now that he's been caught wouldn't be a huge step forward in my view.

One of the biggest reassurances when unblocking a problem editor is that they can easily be reblocked if the problematic behavior resumes. In this case, I'm not reassured. He is skilled at remaining superficially civil, which often distracts focus from serious underlying behavior. If he resumed being disruptive, history tells me that he couldn't be reblocked without extensive time, effort, and angst. That, combined with the utter lack of anything resembling remorse or a desire to contribute constructively, make it very unlikely that I could get behind an unblock. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you didn't answer one of my earlier questions, about his ArbCom appeal? Do you have anything to base that opinion on? --Elonka 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that an ArbCom appeal that has not been acted on in more than a month or so has been effectively rejected. I have no special knowledge of their deliberations on the matter, though if it's relevant I could email the ArbCom mailing list. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no, my understanding is that the ArbCom can take months to consider a request, so I wouldn't take silence as an indication of rejection. :) Anyway, I am now in email communication with Jagz, as you suggested. If he is willing to apologize and explain, then his talkpage would need to be unprotected so that he could post this apology. Would you be amenable to me unprotecting the talkpage in that kind of a situation? I assure you that I would not do it lightly. --Elonka 20:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest emailing ArbCom to see if they've considered his request. I say that because previous experience is that they sometimes (often?) "decline" a meritless request by simply ignoring it. If you'd prefer, I will email the mailing list or one of the members to inquire.

I don't see a lot of good coming from having his page unprotected. Yes, there is always a non-zero chance that he'll see the light, but we have finite resources, finite goodwill, and finite volunteer time and at some point we have to decide to move on. I feel very strongly that Jagz has already had ample chance to apologize, to explain, or to change his approach.

I'm not convinced that an "apology" is a step forward. His actions make it exceedingly clear that he accepts no fault, and to some extent he's been enabled in this regard. My take on this situation is that the vast majority of folks who've looked at it are ready to be done with Jagz. I'm happy to test the waters with whatever venue you feel appropriate to gauge outside opinion, but I think that pushing for yet more slack for this particular editor is out of step with the community. If I'm wrong about that, then I'd be fine with unprotecting his page. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now I think a lot of people have a kneejerk negative reaction to the name "Jagz", such that they immediately assume bad faith regardless of what he does. He could say, "Please don't make provocative statements", and he'd be accused of trolling. Whereas, while he was evading his block as Fat Cigar (talk · contribs), when people didn't know it was him, they actually got along with him fine. For example, did you see Wobble's comment to FC's talkpage,[13] about what a pleasure it was to interact with him? I feel strongly that the way through this, is for Jagz to apologize about what he did, and to promise to let things go. Then he could create a new account that no one would recognize, and get back to working on the encyclopedia. If others left him alone, I think he'd leave them alone, and we could all move on. --Elonka 21:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka misrepresented what had gone on between me, Charles Matthews, FT2 and Paul August to Jagz. I have no idea why she did so. In fact I had asked to be reblocked and then to leave wikipedia. All three were against this. Elonka, please find something else to do. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if Jagz actually wanted to create a new account and edit constructively, on his other interests besides racial genetics, I doubt anyone would notice or care. I don't go around Wikipedia looking for socks, but I notice obvious attempts to evade a block and pursue old grudges (and Fat Cigar was obvious). MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this then? If he agrees, we unprotect his talkpage, he posts a public apology, we unblock, and then he abandons the Jagz account and starts something new. The new account would continue to respect the Jagz topic ban on the race articles for the next 3-6 months, and this would be monitored by a few admins (perhaps myself, ArbCom, and anyone else they appointed). As long as he steered clear of the topic area, and steered clear of the editors with whom he was in a dispute before, he should be allowed to go forth and edit. The editors with whom he was in dispute would also be directed to stop talking about him on-wiki. So no sniping, no public sock-hunting, no baiting. And everyone just moves on. Would you be amenable to that? --Elonka 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in unblocking the Jagz account only to retire it. If he steers clear of the dispute and the small set of associated editors, then I don't see how we'd even know if he edited under another account. There hasn't been any public sock-hunting - Fat Cigar (talk · contribs) was pretty blatant. I would certainly encourage no-sniping, including on the part of editors who dislike Jagz. Can we find someone to supervise and/or mentor Jagz? That might go a long way, in conjunction with the subject and editor restrictions above. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of unblocking the account, would be so he could continue to edit on a new account without worry that a single false step would immediately have him blocked for "block evasion". Or are you saying that we should indeed encourage him to create another account now, even though the Jagz account is blocked? If there was a consensus that that was the best way through this, I could go along with that, and would be happy to mentor his new account, whichever name he chose. --Elonka 21:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesistant to encourage anyone to evade their block, although sometimes this may be the most functional solution - because if the issue of block evasion comes up, it's because the new account is behaving so similarly to Jagz that someone made the connection. That concern is addressed in similar terms in Wikipedia:Sock#Clean_start_under_a_new_name. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, setting aside the issue for the moment of whether Jagz is or isn't banned... Why then did we block Fat Cigar (talk · contribs)? How was that account being disruptive? --Elonka 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? He was evading a block to edit similar articles, and continuing to pursue old disputes - your RfC and the tag-teaming thing, for example. Textbook abusive socking. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How are you describing those as old disputes? Neither of those pages was even in existence around the time of the race disputes, nor did they even have anything to do with that topic area. The RfC was about the Israel/Palestine area, and the Tag team essay was an outgrowth of WP:WORKGROUP, in the ethnic/nationalist topic areas, neither of which (to my knowledge) had anything to do with where Jagz had been editing. Or put it another way. If it had not been Jagz behind the Fat Cigar account, and it had just genuinely been a new user, was there anything disruptive there? --Elonka 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption can't be divorced from account history that cleanly. Evading a block is disruptive, because it undermines the mechanisms we use to keep this site functioning. Creating a sock to disguise one's relevant history and comment as an "uninvolved editor" at an RfC is disruptive. Fat Cigar's participation was entirely explicable in terms of Jagz' focus: racial genetics and self-justifying "tag-teaming" stuff. I don't have psychic powers nor access to checkuser - how else would it be obvious to me that Fat Cigar == Jagz if they had not exhibited the same behavior? MastCell ^Talk 23:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. There were indeed similarities in style between Jagz and Fat Cigar. As I recall, I spotted him as a probable sock right away, though I wasn't sure who the master account was. There were multiple socks (or at least secondary accounts) posting at my RfC and related pages. But I feel like we're running into a Catch-22 here right now. On the one hand you seem to be saying that we should leave the Jagz account blocked, and he should just start a new account. On the other, he did start a new account, Fat Cigar, but you said that that account needed to be blocked for evading a block. So, how do we set up a structure by which Jagz can edit under a new account, without getting blocked for block evasion? That's why I'm saying that first we need to get the Jagz account unblocked, so that he can put a {{retired}} tag on it, and then go on and edit somewhere else. --Elonka 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. If he starts a new account and it behaves similarly enough that it can easily be linked to Jagz, then there's a problem. If Fat Cigar had edited our article on the price of tea in China, no one would fuss or even connect him to Jagz. If he wants to be able to create a new account and run about editing the same old articles and commenting on the same old wikipolitical issues, then yes, I think that's a problem. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban on his editing, to keep him from editing any race-related articles for the next 3-6 months. He would also need to avoid the talkpages of users with whom he was in a dispute, such as Slrubenstein, Mathsci, Alun/Wobble, and Ramdrake. As I recall on his last block there was a problem where Ramdrake et al. were even complaining if Jagz so much as suggested a source to a friendly editor, so we might want to clarify the topic ban even further: No race-related edits, no participation of any kind on race-related articles, no comments on race-related article talkpages, no participation in AfDs or noticeboard threads on race-related topics, no comments of anything race-related anywhere on Wikipedia, period. Further, if he wanted to comment about anything that someone has done on a race-related page, he shouldn't even bring it up an admin's talkpage, he should send his concerns in private email. But if he wants to participate on non-race-specific policy or guideline pages, I wouldn't see that as disruptive. Or are you proposing that he be banned from everything in Wikipedia space as well? --Elonka 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ri) See WP:DENSE. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 02:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jagz is not a victim here. He broke almost every single rule in the book, and caused huge amounts of wasted time and unnecessary conflict across an entire topic area. All for what? Zero productive result at all. So why we're even contemplating unblocking him, no idea. Particularly since the problem wasn't just WP:TIGERS - though that was the main issue - a personality incapable of letting go of a losing cause didn't help. Moreschi (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sitting Bull RFPP

I protected the page for a month, went back to note, and saw that you had listed it as semi-protected for 2 weeks. It's not in the log; did we E/C, with me getting in the page protect and you getting in the notation? Horologium (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you already updated. :) Horologium (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I hit the protect button and Wikipedia failed to respond (access has been spotty today, or maybe it's just on my end). By the time I got back to it, I saw you'd already protected the page. I adjusted the RFPP note to reflect your protection. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ericsson R380 Undeletion

I apologise if I'm getting this editing stuff on this talk page wrong ... I've not had a situation where a page I was trying to visit had been deleted before and so trying to follow the twisty maze of links about how to get it reviewed for possible undeletion has left me a little dizzy :-) The Ericsson R380 is, I believe, the first phone handset from Symbian, one of the first touch-screen phones (pre-dating the iPhone by seven years), and as such is sometimes quoted as a significant handset/milestone in articles about the latest cellphone designs and the importance of touch-based mobiles. While the impact in the US was low, as it was a GSM phone, it's impact in the UK and other parts of the world (including other English-speaking countries) was greater (not massive, but I think it meets the notability test). I would have contested the PROD had I noticed it at the time, but I don't keep an eye on these things. I didn't miss it in Wikipedia because there are numerous links available via Google for information on the phone, but that cannot be a basis for deletion of articles on WP (can it?) otherwise a large number of pages would just have "JGI" as their only content! cheers The Magician (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I've restored the article and left a note on your usertalk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Help on Two Articles

You seemed like a reasonable person, not inherently skeptical but with a disciplined mind. (Haven't looked for that source on quantum healing, yet.) Would you be willing to review recent activity on two separate but related topics? In my opinion, there is blatantly biased dumping of turds going on that I am wasting my time cleaning up. I am probably not 100% correct, either, but I know a turd when I see one. Check out Talk:Energy (esotericism)#Double Standard and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden 2 if you have time. I'd be curious what your thoughts are. Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look, since you buttered me up :) It may be a couple of days, though - hope that's OK. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Graveyard Alive

Hi, could you undelete Graveyard Alive? I think it meets notability criteria for independant film. It won Best Cinematography 2004 at the Slamdance Film Festival, and has reviews in Film Threat, the Globe and Mail (561 words), Variety (small), Canoe.ca. - BalthCat (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the top box now. It was an Expired PROD. - BalthCat (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem; restored; longer note on your talkpage. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

From other comments above I assumed a bit of a wait at least. Thanks! - BalthCat (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What?

Why have you blocked my ip address? 86.42.208.242 I'm not a sockpuppet and I don't know this has happened but the edits made with my ip address were not made by me!! How did this happen? Is this guy like controlling my computer or something??????? gr8lyknow —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

Many IP's are dynamic and change over time. It may be that your IP was previously used by someone else in a manner that led to a block. The advantage of registering an account, as you've done, is that you won't be blamed for anyone else's actions. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation research

FYI: Spinal manipulation research resources. You are welcome to contribute with comments, suggestions, and additions at the talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am at a complete loss to explain why certain editors, who have openly declared their intention to abuse Wikipedia as a promotional megaphone for their pet ideas on cold fusion, retain the ability to edit there. When people openly boast of using Wikipedia to increase the visibility and credibility of their fringe claims, something is fundamentally wrong. So I sympathize. However, I'm a bit limited in what I can take on at present; I've been trying to clean up some of our medical articles, and I'm not sure I have the mental energy to familiarize myself with the sources, issues, and players in this particular episode. You might get some useful input at WP:FTN. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaccine_controversy

I've tried repeatedly to get those vandalizing the article to talk. They won't. Some of the reverts were to my own edits because I somehow messed something up and couldn't fix it. But don't take my word for it, you can see for yourself.

If you had a bot issue the warning then ignore this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind (talk • contribs) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you incorrectly accusing others of vandalism, attacking other editors, ascribing every disagreement to bad faith on the part of others, and edit-warring. None of those are particularly productive behaviors. I didn't count your reverts, yet, because I was hoping a request to slow down and chill out would be most useful. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to amend my earlier response. The parties are now using the talk page, rather than the edit summary to discuss their objections. And I apologize for all those bad things you say I did. Somebody used the edit summary to accuse me of vandalism, and I bit back. My bad. FX (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was wrong on their part. This appears to be a content dispute all around, which is not vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And I totally forgot about the three revert rule. FX (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the article is about a controversy, one might expect some controversy when trying to improve the article. To say the least. FX (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sara is Protected

From what? I really don't know. Had you made the protection call, I would not have a problem since you have been a contributor to this volitale article and have some insight into its daily meanderings.. Any true vandalism was minor and no more serious than any other high-interest article receives. Was there some conversation amongst administrators? Were you asked your opinion by the admin that threw the blanket over the whole deal? BTW...I have had dealings/conversations with L'Aquatique and find her decisions and actions rash and ill-founded. I hope there will be discussions after the 4th of November regarding the Sara Palin article and the actions of editors and administrators since mid August-2008. Thank You.--Buster7 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't heard anything one way or the other, and had no part in the decision. Since I've edited the page, it would be improper for me to protect or unprotect it, though I could of course voice an opinion on the matter. I purposely unwatched the page and pledged not to view or edit it a few weeks ago, for my own sanity, so I've not been particularly aware on its recent vagaries. The article can still be edited with the {{editprotected}} tag, but the process will of course be more laborious. I'm not sure I think this is a good idea, but I suppose with the election so near it may be an appealing solution. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Buster7. — Writegeist (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

grammar... in lead sentence... making eyes hurt.

Thanks for that. It bothered me too, but my attempt at fixing it was reverted, so I let recumbent canines snooze, or something like that. -- Zsero (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect my change may be reverted soon as well, but I had to try. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith

I was editting under SBlue but frankly found too much of WP is not nice. I believe that sock puppets are only such with intent. Let me know if this is not so. I find your TPG link in bad faith. So I see that WP is for you too not a happy experience. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It has its ups and downs.

I'm not sure how a link to the talk page guidelines can be "in bad faith", particularly when it appeared to me that you were violating them. I don't have a problem with you using an IP rather than your retired account. It is a bit tiresome to deal with these situations, though. You were obviously not a new user, but still, if I don't point you to the relevant guidelines and policies I'll be accused of "biting" a "newbie", while if I do point you to them, I'm apparently acting in "bad faith" or being condescending. Welcome back, in any case. MastCell ^Talk 08:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please showme were I was violating them. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be "a bit tiresome" but the admins at WP:ANI let something through that turned WP into way less than positive and I still dont like the idea of being a registered editor. Until WP takes care of its people I don't want to be too involved. Anyway if I was violating TPG please let me know how - if you now think I wasn't then no worries. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I felt like you were arguing your personal beliefs and opinions about the OPV AIDS hypothesis, rather than dealing with specific reliable sources and content issues. Maybe I was being oversensitive. Anyhow, not a big deal. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can suggest where Wikipedians discuss ways to better look after Wikipedians? Just in my brief visit to OPV AIDS people seem more on edge than I remember them (a general impression based not just on one section of our interaction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.119.27 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Socks at wp:fringe

Since you blocked HomeJames (talk · contribs) for socking, I thought you might take a look at Deadasamackerel (talk · contribs). Are these the same person do you think... any idea who is doing this? NJGW (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea, but I've asked them to use their main account, as this sort of socking is inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 06:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

School's out

Election day is a school holiday for some states, and childish vandalism always increases on school holidays. School's out on the East Coast, and autism is already getting hit. I suspect both autism and Asperger syndrome will get hit all day tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Autism looked pretty busy in terms of vandalism, so I've semiprotected it for 48 hours. Asperger syndrome hasn't been hit too hard (yet), but if it picks up just let me know and (assuming I'm online) I'll take a look. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

a paragon of patience

How did you resist commenting on the use of it's/its by a National Academy of Scholars proponent? Had I only half of your self-control.... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a pet peeve of mine (see the userbox on my userpage), but I've pretty much given up on its/it's in the Internet age (who/whom has been a lost cause for years). Nowadays, if people can correctly utilize they're/their/there, I assume they were Phi Beta Kappa. As to patience, I suppose I was just inspired by your username... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm an academic, and I still (sometimes) screw up the it's/its and they're/their/there myself. please allow me to beg for mercy in advance. --Ludwigs2 04:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The interesting thing about NAS and their ilk is that the evidence indicates that they're superfluous. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

When I saw that comment, my guess was that you were talking about the National Academy of Sciences. Since every self-respecting quackbuster knows that the Institute of Medicine is a full of quackery. Since the Cochrane systematic reviews on Alt and Comp Med find a comparable number of effective treatments, and much less harmful treatments, obviously they're just in the pocket of "big herbal". ;) II | (t - c) 19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is curious that the National Academy of Sciences happens to share an acronym with this conservative pressure group. Henry Bauer, an AIDS denialist, was described as a "member of the NAS", which I naively took to mean that he had achieved the signal honor of being elected to the Academy. Interestingly, this is not the first case of "acronym overlap syndrome" to affect the AIDS-denialist webosphere - see here for (innocent, I'm sure) confusion between the mainstream American Academy of Emergency Medicine and the utterly fringey American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Lesson: throwaway acronyms like "Fellow, AAEM" or "Member, NAS" need to be carefully parsed when they are attached to fantastical claims.

But I get it: you were poking fun at Quackwatch. I think you're rather glibly misusing the Cochrane dataset to argue equivalency, and I'm sure you understand why, so I won't belabor it.

I don't see how herbal medicines can claim to even want scientific credibility when they fight tooth and nail against any sort of regulation or safety/purity/efficacy testing. DSHEA was the best thing to happen to the herbal manufacturers who spent millions lobbying for it, and the worst thing to happen to anyone who's curious about the actual medical properties of herbal susbstances. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those similar acronyms are suspicious. Maybe it should be illegal? I actually don't understand why I'm misusing the Cochrane dataset, especially since the IOM book originally noted that they are comparable. I'll certainly allow that the IOM book actually compares the 2004 CAM Cochrane library with the 1998 conventional Cochrane library, and that comparing it from this high of a level can be misleading. It is akin to a rough epidemiological study, and it would be interesting to see it broken down into categories, or to get some idea of the magnitudes involved. A list of what the studies were on is here; most were on dietary supplements and herbal remedies. A table of the Cochrane studies is here. Just it is a rough look at the statistics doesn't mean that it doesn't say something significant. I wasn't arguing equivalency. But the difference between conventional wisdom ("alt med is quackery") and reality is stark. And I'm just as disappointed with the unscientific way that the mainstream has treated these alternative techniques for the past fifty years than with the way that they are promoted without scientific basis. The mainstream is made up of scientists who should know better. The latter are usually either crooks or poorly-educated.

I can't imagine what herbal medicines might want, but I'm sure many manufacturers don't want to be regulated. I'm sure that many consumers, such as myself, want them to be at least regulated for purity of ingredients, perhaps safety, although herbal medicines undeniably pose far less health risks on average than prescription medicines. I can't blame consumers for worrying about FDA regulation for efficacy, when the big pharmaceutical companies impose so much influence on the FDA (see, for example, the preemption controversy).

I've noticed stark results from two remedies, kava and xylitol, and I can safely say they have changed my life for the better (xylitol nasal wash cured my chronic sinusitis[14], and kava helped me conquer social anxiety disorder). Unfortunately I can't find reliable potent kava in the pill form anymore. I have to buy it in a paste. II | (t - c) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, kava's a bit risky, especially since it's hard to know how potent a given brand is, but you can't argue with success, I suppose. I don't hold the view that "alt med is quackery". Reality is much more nuanced; some alt-med is undeniable quackery, while other aspects have a reasonable if not particularly mature evidence base. Most are somewhere in between. I refer people to chiropractors from time to time; I've also witnessed cases where people suffered serious or irreversible damage as a result of alt-med practitioners operating outside their scope or skills.

But even if thought it was all quackery, I'm a pragmatist. People use the stuff. I think it's much more interesting to view alternative medicine as an indicator of the areas where "conventional" medicine has failed to meet people's needs or expectations. Medicine does a pretty good job with serious illness - if you have AIDS, or septicemia, or testicular cancer, then "conventional" medicine can save your life, and alternative medicine can't. On the other hand, many chronic, non-lethal conditions are often poorly addressed by mainstream medicine. You hit upon two: social anxiety disorder and chronic sinusitis, to which I'd add back pain (really, any chronic musculoskeletal pain), allergies, and a host of others. I'd also throw "health promotion" (rather than treatment of disease) under that umbrella - mainstream medicine has moved forward here, but historically it's been a neglected area.

You mentioned pre-emption, which is a concerning area. Certainly the regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is suboptimal, from any perspective, but there's no comparison to the herbal/supplement industry, which is based solely on the principle of caveat emptor. I have very little patience for the supplement industry and their flacks when they criticize the drug industry - because these guys would go to any length and spend their last lobbying dollar to avoid being subject to even 1/1000th of the regulation that drug companies operate under. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jagz sockpuppets

His recent attempts of abusing sockpuppets with Deadasamackerel and Hit the fan should end all thought of ever removing his permanent community ban. And those who provided Jagz good faith should be trouted with a ripe one.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're preaching to the Pope on that one. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Trout my gluteus maximus. Vigorous whacking with a blue whale wouldn't be enough to drive clue into some of these individuals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I'm warning you that tonight is bonfire night. Happy November the Fifth (is it a celebration that he was stopped in time, or that he nearly got away with it? I'm never sure) Verbal chat 20:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To Boris. I don't know what they taught you at the collective educational facility, but a trout is a fish, and a whale is not. I think you flunked Metaphor 101. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I always do my best to derail a mixed metaphor before it takes flight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a thought we can all get behind. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say, it's not your ass in the noose. Verbal chat 20:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, anybody ever noticed that Jagz' three known sockpuppet names, strung together, form a sentence? Fat Cigar Hit the Fan, Dead As a Mackerel. Could there be a subliminal message in there?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jagz' Fat Cigar Hit the Fan, Dead As a Mackerel. I think you'll find (or is it Jagz's?) Verbal chat 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Thanks for closing the discussion. I was wondering if I should move it to his talk page or something, but I thought I should outline the problem first. Cheers, Verbal chat 20:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, is it considered appropriate to delete posts from Talk Pages if someone considers their content to be "libelous"? If the very fact that it is contentious is why the original poster posted it, shouldn't it be discussed instead, with an opportunity given to the original poster to establish that it is reliably sourced, and for dissenters to refute it by presenting counterarguments? Nightscream (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, WP:BLP applies to talk pages (actually, all namespaces), so unsourced and defamatory speculation has no place anywhere. On the other hand, talk pages have to serve as a place where ideas for article improvement can be openly discussed. The line is usually pretty clear: if a post contains negative information about a person, but that information is well-sourced and encyclopedic enough that one could potentially see it making its way into article space, then it should remain. However, if the negative material is unsourced or poorly sourced (as defined in WP:BLP), and there is no reasonable expectation that it can be rendered encyclopedic, then it really has no place on the talk page.

In the case in question, the claims are sourced (vaguely) to an AIDS-denialist tract which appears to be published by an obscure publisher - possibly self-published, though I haven't looked into this. There's no way that this is an acceptable source for serious accusations about a living person. Pending a better source, I don't have a problem with removing this material per WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Always generous, MastCell: the "obscure publisher" has published a grand total of one book and is owned by the author. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You publish books now, or is this a new movie? "MastCell: The Obscure Publisher" - is it like the punisher? (sorry) Verbal chat 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am becoming a bit of an expert on vanity presses thanks to Wikipedia. I am also considering submitting my work to Medical Hypotheses for publication. My current dream project is to compile a Wikipedia-specific impact factor: basically, to survey Wikipedia's scientific and medical articles and rank journals by how heavily they are cited. I believe the results will be utterly horrifying; for example, it would not surprise me at all if Medical Hypotheses or the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons outranked the New England Journal or Cell in terms of Wikipedia citations. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I computed statistics for that a couple of a months ago, just for Featured Articles in health and medicine and just counting {{Cite journal}}. The final score was N Engl J Med 50, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 48, Lancet 42, Neurology 39, ..., Med Hypotheses 4,... and Cell zero. See User:Eubulides/Sandbox. That zero for Cell was pretty embarrassing! but I know the Cell count is at least 3 now since I've added that many cites to Cell since then. Eubulides (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not too bad; I can see at least one justifiable citation to Medical Hypotheses, in that the original paper claiming a link between thimerosal and autism appeared there, so for historical purposes... but I suspect the situation is far worse if we look beyond the featured articles. MastCell ^Talk 06:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to self, cite Cell in the future wherever possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Jimbo Wales said a note should be placed in the archived discussion explaining what happened, would you mind if I did this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. I'd prefer something short and neutral, like "Comment removed per talk page guidelines", with a diff if necessary. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

I would like a clarification of my topic ban from Barack Obama articles, since you appear to be the self-appointed jailer/gatekeeper/interpreter. My question is about Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Obama has nothing to do with that organization. Efforts to link him to that organization have been met with edit warring from the cabal of editors who have appointed themselves as Obama's protectors at Wikipedia, so I will accept their judgment on the matter. ACORN endorsed Obama for president, but that doesn't make it an Obama article; and now that the election is over, it's more irrelevant. I will steer clear of any mention of Obama in that article. But I would like to participate in editing the article.

Also, you said on my User Talk page at the time you blocked me on October 12, "If I'm wrong about your motivation for editing the article, I look forward to your improvements to our ACORN article when your block expires after the Presidential election."[15] Implicit in that statement was a promise to allow me to edit that article after the block expired. The block has expired. I demand that you keep your promise. Kossack4Truth (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I like your easygoing, non-confrontational style. That's just the sort of approach we need on these controversial articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In real life, you'd be amazed at my easy-going and non-confrontational nature. But if you'd take a look at this editor -- years of work on a multitude of topics, and his illustrious history here [16] -- you'd realize that I'm not alone in recognizing a serious problem, and attempting to resolve it. He was a very good editor, with a real wealth of easy-going, non-confrontational charm, and he has been driven off. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to see Noroton go; I had a very positive impression of him, and I had brief contact with Jayvdb (talk · contribs) who was looking into the circumstances surrounding Noroton's block. My hope was that things would be sorted out and he'd return to editing, because I think he was a good editor.

I'm not encouraged by your continued insistence on viewing Wikipedia as a battlefield. That said, I am OK with you returning to edit the article at this point, per the line of reasoning you quoted above. I doubt you're going to be cut an extensive amount of slack, given past history, so please make an effort to keep things under control. That said, yes, as far as I'm concerned it's OK for you to once again edit the ACORN article. MastCell ^Talk 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey MastCell, I'd like some clarification as well. A topic ban means he can't even comment on the topic, whether in article space, talk space, or user talk, right? So is this edit, in an Obama section, out of line? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw your response below, no need to reply twice. Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing

Hi MastCell,

If you're still watching colon cleansing, could you have a look at the talk page and the most recent changes? I wouldn't mind endorsement of my analysis of the Medical Hypotheses article here. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

Did you reply? I checked my queue but didn't see anything. Or you can contact me via IMs. --Elonka 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping? --Elonka 06:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I had not emailed you back because, as I said, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you'd like that in an email, I'll send it, but I don't know what else to say at present without more context or detail. MastCell ^Talk 06:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN disruption

The article on ACORN is currently under full protection because of disruption by User:WorkerBee74 and the possible sock account User:Marx0728. It's hard to keep up with what is a block, a ban, etc., but I think the WB74 account is now blocked for a while. In the meanwhile, the account User:Kossack4Truth, that you blocked for a month a month ago, has shown up to continue all the arguments and tone previously carried out by the account WB74. Also at the same moment, the SPA User:Curious bystander also showed up. Since you were previously involved in the applying the K4T block, and had followed these accounts, I thought you might want to keep half-an-eye on the article and the accounts.

I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what the sensible way to deal with all of this is. I'm not quite sure how many editors are behind these disruptive accounts, but I'm pretty darn certain that accounts > editors, even if editors > 1. Any thoughts? LotLE×talk 18:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody asked my opinion, but since ACORN is still full-protected until 15 November, I don't see any urgency. Though Kossack4Truth has shown up on the article's talk page, due to the protection he can't do anything to the article. My personal opinion is that further misbehavior by K4T should lead to an indef. Since returning from his block all he has done is express his curiously emphatic views at the ACORN talk page, and make a few innocuous edits here and there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LotLE is continuing to post these provocations, here and at the article Talk page, despite multiple warnings. This is a violation of WP:TALK and WP:CIV. Did I mention the fact that multiple warnings have been issued? Please do something to make these provocations stop, MastCell. I've had enough. I'm trying to remain civil in the face of this but I find it difficult, and I notice that the same tactics were successfully used against WorkerBee74. He was provoked into making one edit that got him blocked. Since LotLE sees that such tactics are successful, he is repeating them. It destroys any chance of a constructive and cooperative editing environment. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a violation of WP:TALK or WP:CIV, though if you want to provide diffs I will look at them. I'm not standing in the way of you editing at this point, but playing for sympathy is really overdoing it. I agree with EdJohnston's comment. MastCell ^Talk 05:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the K4T ANI details and whatnot, it looks to me like s/he is still currently under a 6 month topic ban: User talk:Kossack4Truth#I don't know how to make this clearer. To my thinking (as other editors have commented on the ACORN talk page, the ACORN edits violate this ban since K4T's edits there have always and solely concerned trying to create an association between ACORN and Obama. LotLE×talk 08:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain, with specific diffs, how I have tried in the past 24 hours "to create an association between ACORN and Obama." Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This comment appears to be a violation of the topic ban as well, and this one is advocating a bit of behind-the-scenes coordination (and insinuating same from others). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm really tired of the constant game-playing and battlefield approach of K4T. I am well past the point where I think anything of value to the encyclopedia will be lost if he's indefinitely blocked. However, I'm also tired of refereeing. Let me think about it; if there are other admins paying closer attention to these articles, you may want to solicit their opinions. I'll be happy to voice mine as well. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Arbcom

I chuckle a bit at your stubborn refusal to be drafted. Just be careful who you vote for, you never know how many people will just blindly follow your example.--Tznkai (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

MastCell has my vote if any seats open up unexpectedly after this election (which they surely will, can they still be unexpected?). If Jimmy is smart he won't pick down the list when MC here has nothing to do with his time...Avruch ^T 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The check's in the mail. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might considering running for a higher office in 2016? You appear to have already developed a base of support here ;) -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just imagine the BLP issues that would cause though.--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Full protection until January 20th, 2017 then. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the only political position I'm remotely qualified for, apparently, would be Republican Vice Presidential nominee. I've run up a huge deficit and then relied on a government bailout, which casts doubt on my fiscal responsibility. Finally, if the right wing went nuts because Obama once sat at the same table as William Ayers, I'd hate to see what they make of the people I hang around with... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that Ambassador to Fiji would be a fun position. Just that damn Senate review thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why God made recess appointments. Why should the Senate be able to stand in the way of qualified people like yourself or John Bolton? Who put them in charge, anyway? MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another "test case"?

Uncomfortably familiar goings-on here on the part of someone we recall bringing a previous ill-advised "test case" against an admin. I'm almost tempted to break my don't-get-involved-in-Wikipolitics rule. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. To be honest, once I got past my gut reaction (which was similar to yours), I do think it was an ill-advised unblock on Slrubinstein's part. Not that the unblock itself was the wrong decision, but that undoing another admin's block without discussion was an error of judgement.

I can't keep up with what WP:WHEEL says, but if I were in Charles Matthews' position, I'd be peeved as well if someone undid a "harassment" block of mine without making an effort to contact me first. Slrubinstein is a good admin; I don't think he should be desysopped or anything, but I do think that he ought to acknowledge the concern and make an effort to proactively contact the blocking admin before unblocking someone in the future.

Just my 2 cents, but then, like you, I'm trying to withdraw from wikipolitics as much as possible, so I doubt I'll comment on the RfC. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar feelings as well (I've watchlisted your talkpage by the way, since there seems so much more going on here than on mine) that RfC is a typhoon in a teacup that could have been avoided by better communication on both sides. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "typhoon in a teacup" summarizes it pretty well. I can see the point about the unblock but the response seems disproportionate -- back in my admin days I'd have just put a "that was uncool" message on the other guy's talk page. I have to wonder whether the RfC isn't laying the groundwork for something bigger, or maybe I'm just overly cynical from being around this place too long. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm holding my breath that you three will actually ignore the RfC, especially if it goes bad for Slr. I'm just saying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've commented already, so don't take that attitude, my lad. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we all scratch it up to emotions running high. Hey, yes SLR probably made a mistake, but he apologized for acting rashly already, so this RfC smacks to me like someone wants to publicly humiliate him. That's a much bigger no-no in my book than acting too quickly and then apologizing for it. And dredging up one- and two-year old events is just uncouth.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To TimVickers...you called me a lad????? I'm probably old enough to be your father. Show respect there LAD!!!! Gambling is illegal at Bushwood sir, and I never slice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, we believed you when you said you were old. No need to prove it by quoting Caddyshack. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And so what do we do with the bunch of you who quote Monty Python on a regular basis? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Monty Python is enduringly popular. People much younger than I quote them regularly. On the other hand, Caddyshack fanhood seems restricted to men d'une certaine age, as the French say. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I fell off the wagon. Just this once. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone fell of the wagon. All of you need rehab. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that RfC has turned into a shining example of the bitch-slapping dispute resolution process. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself: I'm still on the wagon and have not commented. To be honest, if I were to do so, I'd probably sign on to Jehochman's view. Ray is right that the RfC has devolved substantially into a flame war, and I don't think adding my personal opinions to it will be productive. But for private consumption, here they are:

I'm not necessarily favorably disposed toward Charles Matthews. My first exposure was when he stopped by my talk page to question my competence based on one of my speedy deletions; I later found he'd also complained about me on the mailing list. Subsequently, there was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, where I was quite (vocally) dissatisfied with the proceedings. But gut instincts aside, I'm forced to conclude that objectively Charles is basically right on the central issue in this case. Slrubinstein shouldn't have undone the block without contacting him or going to AN/I. That seems unarguable, to me. If I were in Charles' shoes, I'd also find that unacceptable. The subsequent handling of the dispute was suboptimal all aroundd, but an RfC is the official "next step" if one-on-one dispute resolution fails, so I can't really fault Charles for filing one. Unfortunately the RfC has degenerated completely, and I doubt any good will come of it - just hurt feelings.

Here's what I'd like to see: Slrubinstein says, "You're right, I'm sorry, I erred by unblocking someone without first attempting to contact the blocking admin or seeking noticeboard review, and I've learned from the incident." Charles then says, "OK, that's what I wanted to hear." Maybe Slrubinstein has said as much previously; if so, there's no harm in repeating it now. That's not meant to humiliate Slrubinstein, whom I consider an excellent and productive editor and admin; it's just meant to resolve a dispute and get everyone back to doing something more productive. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My contention is that, although RfC is the next step in DR, there is no ongoing dispute, or at least none that is relevant to Wikipedia. The only action being requested is that Slrubenstein say he's very sorry. I don't consider forced apologies a valid outcome of the dispute resolution process.

If every time two admins hated each other it went to RfC, we'd have a lot more RfCs. I feel like Charles Matthews should just be like, "I hate Slrubenstein" and move on with his life. And since Charles Matthews failed to do that and went ahead with this RfC anyway, I don't think anyone should have certified the dispute -- because "I hate that guy" is not a Wikipedia-relevant dispute. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said, MastCell. If Slrubenstein would be reasonable, all the heat would turn towards other parties, I suspect. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jaysweet: Let's suppose you're correct and that Charles is motivated by dislike of Slrubinstein. Even so, all Slrubinstein has to say is: "You're right, I should have discussed the matter before unblocking, and I'll do so going forward." Even if it's just a matter of Charles hating on Slrubinstein, even if he gave the same apology a month ago, it costs nothing, it's not particularly humiliating, and it ends the discussion. If the basis of the RfC really is personal dislike, then the best way of exposing that is by explicitly admitting one's mistakes on a policy level - because that would leave only personal dislike as a motive for continuing the RfC, at which point I think it would rapidly fizzle out. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The odd thing is that I can see Charles' point on the basic facts of the case. Unfortunately the whole RfC is coming to look like his goal is not simply to get the policy point across but to make Slr eat crow of Charles' specified variety and degree of doneness. Too much ego and pride all around. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pride-and-ego down? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah - the funny thing is that said page is "in need of attention from an expert" (in humiliating interrogation techniques, apparently). Any nominations? :) Actually, I have some experience with this technique - it's a widely employed "teaching tool" in surgical training. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Re: the "fizzle out" comment from Mastcell... I agree factually with everything you just said, and if I were in Slrubenstein's position it's more or less exactly what I would do. The fact that Slrubenstein could make the RfC go away with a simple mea culpa does not make the RfC valid, however.

On a somewhat related note, even though I agree Slrubenstein probably should not have unblocked and it would be best if he were to unequivocally apologize, I have a really hard time making sense of the initial block. Even if there is "sensitive" information we don't know, a 1-week block for WP:OUTING makes no sense to me at all. How is 1-week for OUTING preventative?? If MathSci was a short-term outing threat, then 24 hours should have been more than enough to get the message across. If MathSci was dedicated to the OUTING campaign, then the only way to prevent it would be an indef block. Right? Is there something I am missing?

Anyway, that's not really the point, as it's all in the past and I don't think it's worth arguing over it any more since the "dispute" as I defined above is over and done with. But, I can see how it could make an apology a bitter pill to swallow for Slrubenstein, if he still believes Charles Matthews acted inappropriately. So I can understand that...

I suppose the "sensitive information" we don't know could be that Mervyn's home address almost got disclosed, but he was moving in six days anyway... ;D That way, a 1-week block to prevent OUTING does make some sense... Right? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess my perspective is that if a block doesn't make sense on its face, then the first instinct should be to question the blocking admin, not necessarily to undo it. MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I'm just saying, if I got trigger-happy unblocking a bad block, it would be harder to give a sincere apology than if I got trigger-happy unlocking a good block. So even though I agree Slrubenstein should just apologize and make this bullshit RfC go away, I can empathize a little bit.

FWIW, if someone brought an RFC/U because of Charles Matthews' questionable block, my reaction would be similar: MathSci is already unblocked, so uh... what's the problem now? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the underlying block is no longer an issue. I think in this case the problem is that Charles perceives that Slrubinstein hasn't admitted fault, and might act similarly in the future. Whether that is a fair perception, I don't know... I think the RfC has degenerated to the point that parties are talking past each other, if not openly attacking each other. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My level of clue around this matter is pretty good, given that I actually know why the block occurred and have discussed this with several folks who are at very high clue levels. It would really help if people would tell Slrubenstein what is being said here--stop providing an excuse for this circus, you were wrong on a policy level, admit it already. Whatever Charles may or may not have done wrong does not get Slrubenstein off the hook for his own actions. When Slrubenstein intervened, I had already posed the necessary questions to Charles and was waiting for answers. Had my process been allowed to run to completion, I think there would have been an unblock and a lot less fuss. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

'(undent)' If we're going to start opening RfCs on admins because they did something boneheaded in the past and won't admit it.... oh man, I got a whole list! heh..

My position remains that RfC/U is for a pattern of user misconduct. Now, Elonka seems to be alleging a pattern of "unblocking allies" on the part of Slrubenstein, and I must admit I have not reviewed those allegations in depth. If that's what the RfC is really about, maybe we can talk about that.

I continue to feel that seeking this level of dispute resolution for disagreement over the handling of a single past incident is folly. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles

TimVickers suggested that you might be a good person to include in a podcast that Scartol and I are planning about controversial articles. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'll have to decline. It sounds interesting, though - I'll definitely give it a listen. Other people who actively police controversial articles include Moreschi (talk · contribs), JzG (talk · contribs), Elonka (talk · contribs), and Jehochman (talk · contribs) - you could try them if you'd like more participants. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Literary references, and a request

Hey MastCell,

In my constant struggle for self-improvement, I've tried to be more like you and improve my contributions thru the use of literary references: User talk:Barneca/Archive 10#Kang, for example. I even quoted Voltaire in an RFA. So far, however, the hoi polloi seem unimpressed. Sigh.

So anyway, I'm going on a wikibreak for a while. Not a 100% one (I know from bitter experience that those are doomed to failure), but I'll be away enough that I wonder if you'd do me the same favor as last time, and kind of keep an eye on my talk page and help anyone incapable of reading the giant yellow notice. If it doesn't look like it's time sensitive, I'll get to it, but if it looks like someone's stressed out, and you're around, I'd appreciate the backup.

Cheers, thanks, etc. --barneca (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, when you said you quoted Voltaire at RfA, I was thinking you'd go with: "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." Sure, I'll watch your talk page, since you buttered me up. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MastCell

First off please don't accuse me of being a sock, I do not appreciate frivolous accusations. 3RR does not apply to my edits, please read WP:BOLP. Removal of unsourced/poorly sourced contentious material from a bio does not merit a discussion. Youtube, mediamatters and random blogs are not reliable. Thank you. Fru23 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I would strongly urge against violating 3RR under the aegis of WP:BLP. You're removing material which is adequately sourced, in many cases (here, sources include the Southern Poverty Law Center and the New York Times; here, the New York Daily News; here, to Slate and Rolling Stone). I would advise you not to expect BLP protection for such deletions. On the other hand, the fact that you're already capable of wikilawyering about 3RR and BLP within 24 hours of your account's creation may suggest why I consider sockpuppetry a possibility. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Or that I actually read the rules before I do something and was a past IP editor. That section violates violates NPOV. Please read BOLP. Fru23 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) On second thought I will bring that up on the talk page before I remove it again. Fru23 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent idea. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Slate is not a reliable source for a bio, There was nothing under the times daily source and the Rolling Stone piece was not used in the article. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that sources in bios are meant to be neutral. Fru23 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong; consider yourself corrected -- sources must be reliable, articles must be presented neutrally. Mast, can you jump on an RFCU on this guy for me? I am in the middle of relocating to another state and just don't have the time. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Blaxthos is correct; sources must be reliable. For BLP's, this may disqualify openly partisan sources, like MediaMatters, though this is a matter for case-by-case discussion. On the other hand, sources like Slate, Rolling Stone, and the New York Times are generally acceptable for biographical articles, given their reputations for editorial oversight, fact-checking, and correction of factual errors. Again, these are issues to be resolved by discussion on the appropriate talk pages or through the dispute resolution pathway, rather than by edit-warring.

Regarding checkuser, I do not have a sense of which accounts might be related, so any checkuser request would be declined as "fishing". If you have more concrete suspicions of abuse, then they could be pursued. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)