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)

For administrative bravery

File:Haig-award.png		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar & the General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor
		These barnstars are presented to MastCell for courage and clear thinking in the face of obstinacy. -- Fyslee / talk 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW

This[1] is too good an idea to let go. Given that most Wikipedia articles are unreferenced anyway, it might not be too hard if you got the help of someone who knows how to write scripts that would parse the articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's on my to-do list. Technical assistance would certainly be useful... maybe I'll ask around. Thanks for the encouragement. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like it too. Now that you have to keep your head down from Charles Matthews.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct. I'm sorry that this message is so late; I wasn't aware about your nomination when I sent out these messages.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table.

I used the template Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table/cand to make it easier to enter the values in the table. I'm sorry that I didn't get around to entering all values, I will do that in about 21 hours if you don't get around to it. — Sebastian 09:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

Thanks!

Hey thanks for protecting the Francis Drake article. I requested protection a couple months ago and was told there wasn't enough vandalism. What actually constitutes as enough for protection? Thanks again! Deflagro ^C/_T 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Honest answer? Depends on the admin reviewing the request. For me, if there's only two or three incidents a day, that's usually not enough (so long as the page is watched and the vandalism is being reverted). More than that usually does it for me. MastCell ^Talk 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

See the personal attack here. As an uninvolved admin, can you help out? Guido has gone batty with his attacks on editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And then there's this outstanding edit. You know I don't care about civility, but personal attacks, I take umbrage. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really "uninvolved" in this case; I've commented at Simon Wessely and had some interaction with Guido den Broeder in the past. Sorry not to be of more help; I will try to look in on chronic fatigue syndrome, but I don't think I'm suitably uninvolved to act as an administrator in this situation. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR allegation

I would appreciate it if you would provide the "diffs" to support your allegation. Thank you. Chido6d (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What 3RR allegation are you talking about? MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Albanian Air Force

Hi i would like to know where User:77.242.24.253 & User:Noclador are getting these claims and presenting them as facts with no source what so ever on the current flying status of the aircraft in the Albanian air force & User:Noclador for some reason claims I'm committing vandalism and removing User:217.24.241.70 edits when in fact I did not touch any thing he added and does not conflict with any of his edits as you can see on the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanian_Air_Force&diff=177514353&oldid=177443334 can you please try to see why User:Noclador is reverting my posts for no reason with no source and tell him to provide a source and discuss his as he is not willing to discuss with me about it.

User:80.80.161.147 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Once more it's obviously Gon4z... Yesterday he used an IP of the range 80.80.1XX to edit Albanian Airforce again- reason: "removed nationalistic propaganda that has not been sourced and are redicilous claims". Today he uses another IP of the range 80.80.1XX to copy copyvio material into User talk:Shqipe breznica (original text) and than comes straight for you to complain - because he claims I'm "not willing to discuss with him about it." He didn't try to discuss anything and as we know, with user:Gon4z it is useless to discuss... so, that's all & as usual: revert and ignore. --noclador (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the Albanian Air Force page to slow things down. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection. I will keep an eye out for suspicious edtis to the other obvious targets: Military of Albania, Albanian Joint Forces Command, Albanian Naval Defense Forces. --noclador (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Grawp:

Hi there! I must seem like a total idiot, but I saw your comment of FFS on User:Clone 0's talk page and was wondering if I'd done something wrong? (This is in regard to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Grawp) That was my first time I'd been involved with any sockpuppet case and I left a couple of questions at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Grawp - You seem to know what you're talking about so would it be too much to ask if you just explain to me what I'm not getting; I need to learn from my mistakes etc so I can do better next time. If you can't that's okay. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, you didn't do anything wrong. That was just my reaction to the silliness on Clone0's talk page, nothing to do with you. I'm sorry to give you that impression. You did fine. I don't think you made any mistakes. It's a good idea to check the block log before filing the SSP report, because sometimes the suspected socks are already indefinitely blocked and you can save yourself the time spent gathering evidence and filing the report. You did fine - sorry to give you the impression that my edit summary was directed towards you. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay! Yeah, I assumed he wasn't blocked because he made an edit, but forgot even indef's can edit their talk page. Thanks for the help! :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The only other thing I was curious about was whether he needed to be reblocked with a different rationale such as "sock puppet of Grawp" or something rather than just "vandalism only account" which doesn't reflect the whole situtation...? And whether there should be a sign stating that Clone 0 is a sock puppet of Grawp on Clone's user page? Sorry for the questions - I'm gearing up for an RfA in a few months and need all the experience I can muster. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with doing that, but it's generally not necessary. Unless there's a significant movement to unblock the editor, it doesn't really matter too much whether the stated block rationale is "vandalism-only" or "disruptive sock" (assuming both are accurate descriptors). It is a good idea to tag Clone0's page with a sockpuppet template, though - it helps keep track of the socks of a particular editor. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. Thanks a lot for the help. I've changed the template (Assuming I was supposed to change it, not just add another template) and I'm enlightened by your teachings master (cell). ;) Cheers and thanks a lot! Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Good luck with your editor review and RfA. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude

Your "heresy" speech on AIDS reappraisal completely rocks. I'm going to borrow from it in future disputes :)! - Nunh-huh 01:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I must be getting more quotable in my old age... that's the second time in a month I've had the honor. I should really stop releasing these under GFDL if there's a market for them... :) MastCell ^Talk 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mifepristone and Mifegyne History

I appreciate your input and editorial critique of the following paragraph you've previously deleted. It was, and still is, germane to understanding the history of mifipristone. A similar paragraph was mistakenly placed in the "Controversy" subsection, when it should have been included under "History". You deleted it. I'm a novice Wikipedia contributor and I welcome all suggestions, questions, critique, or help in editing this contribution. Thanks for your input. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. As others have mentioned, it might be worthwhile to take a little time to look at other medical articles on Wikipedia and get a sense of where the bar is for the sources we use. According to our policy on neutral point of view, we attempt to provide balanced coverage of a topic that weights available sources appropriately and reflects a balance of published opinion. Particularly on a topic like mifepristone, there is such a large volume of peer-reviewed literature and commentary available that a single letter to the editor from 16 years ago probably falls below the bar for inclusion. As a side issue, as you are the author of the letter in question, our conflict of interest guidelines suggest that you propose its inclusion on the talk page, but be mindful of your position as an involved party. It's best not to personally continue inserting a reference to a letter you authored when there is not yet consensus as to how, and whether, to utilize it as a source. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this allowed?!

I ran across this and I thought this wasn't allowed [2] Isn't this considered convassing? Plus the request states that any altmeds are welomed to comment. I am learning policies still and this just doesn't look right. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's not as bad as Oldspammer's last round of canvassing ([3]), so I figured I wouldn't make a big deal of it. He's a bit incorrigible, but at least this is limited to only 2 other (carefully selected) users so far. MastCell ^Talk 06:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

dear sir

hello sir,my name is Pramod VERMA,I am research fellow in Stanford university labs. may I please to ask you if you can msg Dr. Sameer who I have lost e-mail when my computer crash. i have collect data for research and Sameer and I in October were working on it together. please sir,if you are in the e-mail contact with Sameer,please ask him to message Dr. Pramod Verma,he has the e-mail address. thanking you in advance ,sincerely,Pramod Verma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.242.39 (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You've left a message on his user talk page. He'll see it there. MastCell ^Talk 06:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed: deletion of "Eendrag"

Good day

I noticed that you deleted the article "Eendrag" under the Expired:PROD guidelines.

Personally I feel that the article met Wikipedia's notability criteria. Eendrag is a student residence, but has a measurable presence on campus due to it having a student comittee, sport teams, anthem, etc. It is not the same as a residential block of apartments, but rather in instance of the house system -- compare to any instance of a university "college" at Cambridge University, or even to dormitories at MIT.

Recent independent press coverage (mainly due to a fire which gutted the top floor) can by found at News24 and AllAfrica.

I notice that two of the other campus residences, Dagbreek and Wilgenhof, have retained their own pages on Wikipedia, which points to an inconsistency. It has to be noted that these articles are often contaminated with highly subjective praise (by residents). However, this should not negate the intrinsic value of the topic.

I am curious about the motivation of the original deletion tag. I suspect it might be related to inter-residence rivalry. FMalan (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article: Eendrag. Typically, if any editor feels the WP:PROD deletion was inappropriate, I go ahead and restore it. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey there! Just dropping a note to say "thank you very much" for your kind words and support at my RfA, which closed successfully. I really appreciate your comments - it's great to know that I'm striking the right tone with people, especially in some of the heated debates that I've seen and participated in here. Sometimes it's not easy, so I'm glad it's noticeable! I'll be doing my best to use the new tools for the benefit of the community. Thanks again for the support! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I'm pretty selective about whom I comment on at RfA, but you were an excellent candidate and I'm sure you'll be a great admin. Congrats. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid

I was asked by one of the editors to intervene at Plug-in hybrid, but you seemed to have acted while I've been away for a few days, so thanks. I've made some comments on the talk page, I don't know whether you want to add/change anything? Should this article's FA be reviewed? It wouldn't get through GA at present, since not stable? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, just responding to a report at WP:AN3 of a 3RR violation. I'm actually not up at all on the article or its travails, so I'm not sure whether its FA status should be reviewed. If it's truly unstable then perhaps it should go to FA review - however, if it's just one editor with a particular agenda who's edit-warring, then I wouldn't see the need. If you'd like me to take a more detailed look at it, please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that recent instability has either come under control, or that it will do so in the very near future. I have no intention of carrying on the edit war, although I will continue to monitor the article and eliminate edits that are in clear violation of Wikipedia rules. If User:Xchange is willing to open a consensus-building dialogue, I am quite certain he/she can have his/her valid information incorporated into the article without causing angst. If he/she continues to attempt to force his/her edits onto the page without dialogue, I shall monitor the situation without resorting to the simple reverts I used in the past (although I may suggest changes and implement them if I receive support from other editors). If other editors agree that Xchange is editing in violation of Wikipedia policies, I will not hesitate to report Xchange to the appropriate admins. I would be greatly saddened if this situation threatened the article's FA status, and I seek your input as to how I could help avoid this possibility. Many thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Torres

Why was this page deleted? It was a page for a contract character that appeared on Sunset Beach. Why didn't anyone contact the creator of the page (me) before deleting it? Anyway, I've re-added it. And sorry for bothering you, I don't know why nobody said anything about this---I can't go around and click on every article I created to make sure it's still there. Thanks. Dmarex (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted via the WP:PROD process, meaning that another editor tagged it and it was uncontested for a 5-day period. Such articles can be restored at the request of any editor, so it's fine that you recreated it - though it may end up at articles for deletion for wider discussion. It's courteous to leave a note on an article creator's talk page when nominating an article for WP:PROD - I'm sorry that the nominator did not do so in this case. The best idea is to use the watchlist (if you don't already) - when you create a page (or care significantly about it), you can add it to your watchlist and thus be notified if it's edited, nominated for deletion, etc. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Dmarex (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

MastCell, I am very aware of what Vandalism is on Wikipedia. As per the definition, it is vandalism to remove large portions of content without valid reason, or to inject POV into an article. Additionally, creating sockpuppet accounts for blanking large portions of pages and injecting POV also falls under vandalism. UNINTENTIONAL NPOV violations are NOT vandalism. INTENTIONAL repeated injections of POV into an article IS vandalism. Please be aware I do not issue warnings very often, and I don't throw the term Vandal about often. Take a look at my contribs. However, in this case, it is definately warranted, and I am not the only editor to express such concerns. Thanks. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

No, that's true - one other editor has suggested such concerns, but User:Strider12's misunderstandings of policy are quite deep and I wouldn't be too quick to use him as an example. You may be correct about IronAngelAlice's edits violating NPOV, but they are simply not vandalism. If you believe that repeated, intentional injection of POV into an article is vandalism, say by a single-purpose editor with conflict of interest, then where's the warning for User:Strider12? MastCell ^Talk 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Let's go in a different direction. :)

		The Half Barnstar
		I pledge to work WITH you on the David Reardon Article, I hope we can come to a consensus and bring a balanced NPOV article to wikipedia. As a gesture of goodwill, I hereby award you The Left Half of the Half Barnstar! Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have no idea how Wikipedia administration works. Do you know how I should handle this by Ghostmonkey57?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Magnonimous

Hi. After you blocked Magnonimous (talk · contribs), Jerome709 (talk · contribs) put up an unblock message saying that he was autoblocked as a result. Based on their shared interest in Okinawa Coral and that Magnonimous left a message on my talk page last night even though I have never had contact with him before, I'm assuming that the two of them are sock puppets, possibly along with MoonLightGlory (talk · contribs). Sandstein removed the autoblock before seeing my message on Jerome709's talk page. I have blocked Jerome709 directly. Feel free to review. Personally, I'm inclined to ask for a checkuser to find any other accounts, then ask the user to pick one and stick to it. --B (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. Good pickup on the autoblock - I'm about to go have a gin-and-tonic and some leftovers, but if you're up for contacting a checkuser to empty out the sock drawer, I think that's a good idea. I'm a bit pessimistic about this editor's potential, but then I have been accused of being a bit over-cynical on such matters. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous. I'm not sure if there's enough here that it won't get a "checkuser is not for fishing" reply, but it's at least worth a try. --B (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at User talk:Jerome709. I flipped a coin and it came up AGF so I have removed the direct block on his account. The explanation for his one edit to the same article sounds reasonable. I'd still like to hear an explanation for the shared IP ... but a checkuser can make a determination whether they are really the same person by checking browser properties, watchlists, etc. --B (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Jerome709's first 3 edits were to blue out their user and user talk pages; the 4th edit was to WP:AN/I on a matter concerning User:ScienceApologist. And now they happen to share the same IP, edit the same articles, and be "amused" at each other's antics. It sure sounds like a sock/meatpuppet to me; I suppose checkuser will help clear it up, though, and I don't have a problem with waiting for the results before making a decision about re-blocking. MastCell ^Talk 06:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to reset my coin - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous. My inclination is at the very least to indefblock all but Magnonimous and Jerome709 and ask him to pick one or the other. Alison has blocked the IP for a month, so whichever main account he chooses should probably be blocked for that long, with the other indefblocked. Any thoughts? --B (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, my inclination would be to block them all indefinitely - he's been quite tendentious and unconstructive in a variety of ways, and if you add on top of that blatant bad faith (socking, lying about it, vote-stacking, etc) I don't see a lot of reason to give him even more rope. But that's just me, and my patience with tendentious single-purpose sockpuppeteers is at an all-time low. Your suggestion is perhaps more generous and even-handed. At the least, I'd block them all indefinitely except for the longest-standing account; and block that one for 1 month with a detailed block summary pointing to the checkuser request, as you suggested. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked all of the accounts indefinitely except for Magnonimous (which appears to be the master account). I'll leave it up to you what to do with that account; I could live with a 1-month block with a clear link to the checkuser case in the block summary, though my inclination is toward indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with an indefinite block all around if you want to do that - useful contributions from the accounts were minimal. --B (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done... thanks for your work on this. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to this

(legal threat removed by TK)

(Sorry Mast cell I feel it's my duty to butt in) Orange Marlin. If oyu feel it's your civil duty to harrass editors in real life then I need to warn you that we feel it's our duty to prevent you threatening to do so here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So now we have a user who threatens to act in RL on his Wikipedia statements. IMHO, this puts his earlier death threat [4] in a new perspective. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your continued insistence on feigned misunderstanding of the "death threat" violates WP:POINT, and an uninvolved administrator should block you for it. Enough is enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption that I am feigning misunderstanding is a clear violation of WP:AGF. I am taking this threat very seriously, in view of earlier experiences. Why is it not ok to threaten to inform someone's employer, but perfectly fine to threaten to execute someone? Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Becayse he clearly didn't mean it as a death threat but as a figure of speach. This has already been explained to you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, thank you for this response, but I'm going to have to stand up to your other response. You call it harassment. Sadly, it's not, it's MY LEGAL OBLIGATION. However, and this point is important, I've not done anything approaching harassment. I have not contacted him by email. I have not written his superior officer. Hell, since I don't know his name or location, I couldn't do either. I am merely defending Jim, as an employee of the United States Government, has an ethical, moral and legal responsibility to place someone on notice for wasting United States taxpayer money. Maybe Jim could have done it more diplomatically, but in fact, the email did not read that bad. My hope is that VO figures out that he's probably doing something at the minimum inappropriate, and at the maximum, a court martial offense. And truly Guido needs to be blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And It's my WIKIPEDIA OBGLIGATION to stop you making such threats here. Do you understand? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold on let me think about this. Wikipedia, a private foundation vs. my oath to the United States Navy and the Constitution of the United States, my agreement to follow the UCMJ, and my duty as an officer. Hmmm. I think Wikipedia fails in this matter. And Guido should be blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OM's version of the UCMJ seems to have been replaced in 1998 with a far more liberal text [5]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Koonleg50 (talk · contribs)

Just letting you know he's at it again. He put back the wikified text in Wing Tsun, then went and created the page Yong Chun Kungfu and copied over all his unreferenced material in to it. Its been speedy deleted 3 times by other people, and he keeps putting it back. Its been put up for deletion several times by other people, and he keeps contesting. I've again tried to compromise by moving the page to the correct name Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu, adding a reference, clearing out a large listing of links he made to the Chinese Wikipedia, and further explaining the situation on the Jee Shim talk page. I also rewrote the section on the Wing Tsun page to further compromise. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He just did it again at Wing Tsun and Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu, I've stopped before 3rr and filed a complaint against at the adnimistrator board. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The MfD timeline you present in your evidence is incorrect. The comment you link to is from 20 December; the MfD didn't close until 22 December. Please correct your version of events. Thanks. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

You have a point; the only reference I have to support the low-power flash assertion is from a vanity press: Bollin, Bill (2003). Downwinders: Your Personal Survival Guide to an Uncertain Future. New Century Press. p. 11. ISBN 1890035289. The obvious place to check next is google patents. If I find nothing there I'll update my remarks. Still, if I could be fooled, it's not clear User:John Gohde wasn't just fooled also. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about 2 different things. One is the flash issue; I'd be happy to hear anything you turn up on Google patents. The other is User:John Gohde's role in the AfD/MfD. My problem there was the canvassing. While he canvassed "only" 2 folks, they were carefully selected, I think it's reasonable to believe, based on how he thought they would vote. This falls under the "Votestacking/Partisan audience" part of WP:CANVASS. We may just have to agree to disagree there. MastCell ^Talk 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stepped in something I didn't want to step in

Hi MastCell,

I got involved in something that is over my head, and I notice you're involved with the John Gohde RFAR. FYI, the following might have something to do with it:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A request to Ban an abusive Sockpuppet User:Gohdeilocks
• User talk:Barneca

If you feel it would be useful for me to submit some kind of evidence at the RFAR, I can summarize what happened here, although that will have to happen tomorrow. I really thought i was just stepping into a minor personality conflict; I'd never heard of John Gohde before in my life... --barneca (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, User talk:Igorberger#Propose changing section title at WP:ANI and User talk:Gohdeilocks#Renaming the ANI thread. --barneca (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Now that I've had a chance to look into things, it looks like there's nothing to see here. Someone successfully trolled Igor Berger, a friend of John Gohde, and I unwittingly got sucked into it, wasting my time and, I'm sure, providing lots of entertainment to the troller in the process. As far as I can see, nothing really to do with the RFAR, so I'm just going to take what's left of my pride and pretend this never happened, unless I'm missing something and it belongs in the RFAR somewhere. --barneca (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrr. My head hurts. I'm tempted to block both accounts; neither one appears very constructive, and User:Gohdeilocks certainly appears to be up to no good, or at least nothing of benefit to the encyclopedia. I'll wait and see; let me know what you think. At some point I might ask one of the checkusers if they'd consider running the Gohdeilocks account, but I'm not there yet. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think your head hurts, I have whiplash from how fast I went from thinking Gohdeilocks was John Gohde, and thinking Igor was Gohde's archenemy, to realizing it was the reverse. I was one confused little puppy for a while. Since I'm in it now, I'll keep an eye on contributions from both accounts. IMHO no need for blocks or checkusers at this stage; I sort of think Gohdeilocks won't be back (but I've been wrong about 85 times today). If so, then maybe an RFCU. Evidently Igor already tried to get Deskana to run one anyway. --barneca (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to put this delicately, but I think Igor was his own worst enemy there. The more I look at Gohdeilocks, though, the more inclined I am to just block the account and be done with it. My New Year's resolution is to be a bit more proactive about such things. MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to put this to bed, I agree with your assessment above, and the block of Gohdeilocks. It took me a while to realize who was trolling who, because IMHO Igor handled it so poorly, and because Gohdeilocks was pretty good at appearing reasonable. Learning experience. --barneca (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) Again

Is there any way you can take care of this again? Its 12 hours later, nobody has responded on the admin intervention request, and he's doing the disruptive edits and reverts again, doing everything you warned him not to do after the last block. Now he's throwing up edit protect tags as well in an attempt to protect his reverts. I'm at my wits end. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Update - another admin answered. He's now been blocked by admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Off to sleep for me......*thud*. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good... sorry for the delay. I did see your note on WP:AN/I but had limited time to look into it. I know it's frustrating to post something there and have it ignored. I think the pattern is pretty clear here - if the exact same problems resume when this block expires, you can let me know directly and I'll take care of it. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

SSP look

I see you've been active at SSP, which is great. Someone asked for help, but I have prior admin actions on the case, Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MetaphorEnt#User:MetaphorEnt. I respect your views on SSP and would appreciate it if you handle this case. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you disagree with my handling. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs). Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Fibromyalgia

Thanks for your comment on in the Medicine Wikiproject. Would you mind adding your input to the RfC on the Fibromyalgia discussion page? Djma12 ^(talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Batesmethod article ?

In the history of this article you mentioned consensus about the intro. I Have not read anything about consensus. I have only read disagreement. Can you clarify your statement ? Gladly read your feedback. Seeyou (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page. Briefly, it would appear that myself and two other editors prefer the version to which I reverted. My sense, from observing this article over a fairly protracted period, is that you are a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest, or engaged at the very least in tendentious editing. You need to try to convince other editors on the talk page that your preferred version is superior; right now you're engaged in a slow edit-war to try and force your version, which isn't going to be successful in the long run. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempt for Consensus on Reardon Article

Can you please explain why my edits were "From the POV of the Elliot Institute?" I added information directly from the findlaw.com article in a neutral detached manner, added links to the actual ballot measures, and removed the POV links. I even added a link to the missouri cures website which is referenced without cite in the previous version of the paragraph. As stated on the talkpage:

The Facts are as follows:

• The Elliot Institute was promoting a ballot measure titled: "Regulation of Human-Animal Crossbreeds, Cloning, Transhumansim, and Human Engineering Is Reserved to the People".
• Missouri Cures was promoting a ballot measure titled: "Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative."
• The Elliot Institute website promoting the measure mimicked the Missouri Cures Website.
• Missouri Cures filed suit in Federal Court for Copyright violation, and was granted a temporary injunction which temporarily shut down the Elliot Institute Website.

Those are the facts. The Summary I added contains all of those facts, as reported by Findlaw, and linked to the Missouri SOS website.

New Paragraph:

In 2006 the Elliot Institute launched a petition initiative in Missouri titled "Regulation of Human-Animal Crossbreeds, Cloning, Transhumansim, and Human Engineering Is Reserved to the People".[5] The initiative was promoted via the Elliot Institute's website. [6] The layout of the website mimicked ("cloned") the look of a website maintained by the 'Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures'[7] which was at the same time promoting Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2006). The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures sued the Elliot Institute in federal court for alleged copyright and trademark violations and an emergency injunction was granted which resulted in the temporary shut down of the Elliot Institute Website.[8]

Old Paragraph

Reardon and the Elliot Institute opposed The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative in 2006. Reardon created an opposition website which mimicked the site of the initiative's supporters; Reardon's website was ordered temporarily shut down by a federal judge as a violation of copyright.[5][6]

Please explain why an old version that contains only two sentences and is factually incorrect takes precedent over a new paragraph with non-partisan secondary mainstream sources that contains more information and is factually correct? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Thanks for your input on the Talk Page. I appreciate it. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Protection of Bates method article

MastCell, why did you impose a month's "protection" on the Bates method article in response to a single anonymous edit, which by your own revert you indicated that you agreed with insofar as what it removed? As well, no comment was made about what said edit added, though it was reverted. From Wikipedia:Open_proxies: "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time to deal with editing abuse. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Regardless of what transpired previously, it is difficult to see how one essentially constructive edit done through a proxy server warrants a month's ban on edits by unregistered or newly registered users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.129.126 (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered and Mentorship

Hello MastCell - I don't know whether it's proper to write to your TalkPage - but I'm not strictly trying to influence you, only to answer a question that you've put (the answer to which doesn't belong on Jaakobou's ANI).

I was supposedly placed under "mentorship" by a CSN decision (shortly afterwards, the CSN was abolished - perhaps "discredited"?).

I say "supposedly placed under mentorship" because the motion to do it was pretty throw-away, as if to close the discussion prematurely. There'd been lots of ranting at the CSN about "legal threats" I might have made - but nobody could take it seriously - when, under repeated questioning, I denied making legal threats, my denial was taken as being more serious than the charge! (I'm not joking, look at the diff!) I'd already explained that I'd no intention of making "legal threats", I had no interest in doing so, and couldn't possibly have carried them out. However, I accept that, on this occasion, I had done something generally considered offensive. That is the sum total of real "crimes" by me in 18 months (3,000 edits?). All my "disciplinaries" are astonishingly light on evidence - when diffs have been produced, it's often turned out that my edit was excellent information, belonging in the encyclopedia - and has stuck.

Meanwhile, I and at least two other editors were waiting to hear the answer to my CoI question - so the CSN needed shutting down quick, the "mentorship" business was waved through on the nod. (We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes") but his conduct and circumstances might easily give cause for grave suspicion).

There was no discussion of any kind about what form the mentorship should take (and there is no such process in the WP punishment book). But it was understood by all parties to be consensual, it was up to me to find a mentor. Unfortunately, this was proving impossible - despite widespread agreement that my editing problems were/are fairly innocuous (was I sometimes uncivil? did I sometimes soapbox?), the vicious personal attacks launched on everyone who'd "defended" me meant that nobody was willing to come forward. (A member of the top management who has since been supportive was one of those who behaved really badly at one point).

This went on for some weeks, with Jaakobou jumping up and down and demanding to know when I was getting a mentor. (I was briefly blocked to try and hurry me along finding a mentor). User:SpecialJane came forward, and was found to be a banned sock-puppet.

User:Geni came forward, could see few problems with my editing but was bombarded with personal and then public demands that she find fault. Geni resigned, a sad blow - she'd been pro-active in querying my edits - and had saved me from causing quite serious potential offence to one or more random Hebrew speakers (on Jaakobou's instructions to get something translated).

But the demands to silence me continued, the peanut gallery demanded I have a new mentor, and that that person be an administrator - clearly, mere editors were dangerously prone to taking my side - even facing down the bullying of Jaakobou.

So User:Zscout370 stepped up - after 2 weeks of calm and working together productively (or at least happily) he was mysteriously de-syssoped for something else entirely (and forced to flee his home by California fires!). He asked another to block me for posting this semi-conciliatory message to Jaakobou's TalkPage. You might think this demand for a block to be bizarre indeed, since this is the fifth consecutive complaint on Jaakobou's page as to his tendentious behavior - and the most good-natured. Perhaps you'll now better understand why my block-record looks such a mess - "gross injustice" would appear to apply to this one. A similar case can be made for many (perhaps all?) my other blocks.

Another admin(?) stepped up but this wasn't good enough, he'd once shown himself supportive of me and the peanut gallery weren't having it. So, this time (instead of? as well?) I had a "prescriptive mentor" with a terrifying reputation imposed on me. This fifth mentor has ignored most of my demands for attention, but when he has stepped in his assistance has been most valuable. If he's had any reason to complain about me, he's not contacted me either publicly or privately. (Previous mentors have regularily queried my actions - eg with Geni there were, I think, 6 edits of mine that I defended to her apparent satisfaction, one silly mistake I'd corrected 36 hours earlier, and two red-lines, areas of discussion concerning Israel that cannot be permitted in articles, where I'd accepted her restrictions}.

I should emphasise that I've always considered mentorship an excellent idea, and have cooperated enthusiastically with each one - even, after an initially tense period, with the fifth, imposed mentor. Mentorship has not failed in my case - it's been a great success. Every mentor has been driven off by outside factors, mostly highly partisan interference.

Does that answer your question/s? PR^talk 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)