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)

Process

Hi MastCell. I responded a bit impulsively today in the heat of the moment in the thread that alleges misrepresentation of sources. I sort of wish now that I'd held off, since I really appreciate your suggestion that we get back to the process we started. I think that's a good suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. But since you're here, I want to ask you something. Our content on the purported health benefits of Transcendental Meditation is heavily influenced by editors affiliated with the TM movement. Do you think that raises questions about bias (either conscious or unconscious) in our coverage? I think the best practice (one that is recommended, but not demanded, by WP:COI) would be for editors with close connections to the movement to participate in talkpage discussion, but for independent, unaffiliated editors to manage the actual editing of article content.

I'm not a big fan of analogies, but let's say that our coverage of an antihypertensive drug from Merck were dominated by a small group of single-purpose accounts closely affiliated with Merck. That situation would rightly raise concerns about our ability to present accurate and unbiased medical information. I see a similar problem on the TM articles, at least as far as they intersect with medical claims. Do you?

Finally, I'm sort of disappointed in the lack of restraint shown by TM-affiliated editors. Frankly, there are a number of Wikipedia articles, both medical and biographical, which I avoid because I want to manage any potential conflicts of interest on my part. These are areas where I believe I could undoubtedly improve our coverage, but I recognize that my connections (which are not financial, but rather personal or professional) would potentially bias me. So I don't edit those articles, as a simple but healthy form of self-restraint. I sort of wish that some level of introspection would take place here so that people wouldn't need to beat the drum confrontationally about it. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting link

Thought you might be interested in following this series of articles that will be appearing this week. Don't bother reading the comments. I've read some of the earlier series, and they seemed to be bang on. Risker (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought

Since we interacted on Ken Ham, I am reaching out to you for an opinion, as you appear to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz; no specialist knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.

I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Kellermann Article

Hello - I noticed that you've reverted my changes on the Arthur Kellermann article. I think I may have actually misinterpreted the Edit-Revert-Discuss rule, so I intend to revert my revert pending a discussion, which I have started here, and invite you to participate in. --2601:18C:8800:4600:C0B9:4C27:3E01:D719 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI - another user has edited the article with what appears to be a compromise. I've added that language to the "research" section of the article. If you feel this isn't good enough I'm open to discussing. --2601:18C:8800:4600:3007:B672:15D7:6B1E (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Your script

Hello, my friend. I was discussing the registration date display under usernames that happens because of your script. Is there any way to make it show the exact time of registration, at least for new users? This would be helpful to me when doing SPI and to a lesser extent tagteam vandal work. Many thanks for any help you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

All sorted out. Please disregard. And if this is your script I am now using, thank you!!! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Query

Any ideas as to why admins are so reluctant to take action in the GMO topic area? People have tried asking nicely for editors to cooperate. We've had an arbcom case. We've had an RfC. We've had God-knows-how-many iterations of just about every dispute resolution venue imaginable. Yet editors still accuse each other of being industry shills on the one side or "activists" on the other, even on on the AE page itself. And after all this the only thing the admins are able to decide is a warning, as if they were dealing with newbies who had no idea of Wikipedia's standards. Presumably further misconduct will be met with a stern warning, then a that a we really mean it this time warning, and then a you better listen young man or I'll tell your father when he gets home warning, and after that...

I don't recall ever seeing anything like this. Is there something particular to this topic that makes admins especially hesitant? Or is it like this everywhere but I haven't been paying attention? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: I don't think it's the GMO topic area per se. I think you're seeing a sequela of the gradual loss of confident and proactive admins, particularly those with firsthand experience editing (rather than adminning) contentious topic areas. You know, like you. :)

It's not easy to impose a sanction; you have to be willing and available to defend yourself in the inevitable appeals, counter-claims, and so on that follow. The last time I sanctioned someone at WP:AE, he appealed at WP:AN (closed as unsuccessful), reverted the closure of his own appeal and kept arguing (again closed as unsuccessful), appealed on WP:AE, and then finally appealed to ArbCom at WP:ARCA (all of which were also unsuccessful). Each of those actions was completely frivolous and vexatious, but I was compelled to participate in each process and defend the sanction (which, frankly, was an even easier call than the one we're currently discussing). Who wants to spend their volunteer time dealing with that sort of bullshit? It's no wonder admins favor an endless stream of "final" warnings or unenforceable paroles rather than actually taking meaningful action.

There's also a certain level of experience and institutional memory that's been lost, which should keep us from proposing variations on civility parole. But in the end, it's the oldest story on Wikipedia: we're willing to bend over backwards, and spend dozens of hours and thousands of words, finding ways to retain or reform disruptive editors, but we won't spend 30 seconds thinking about or assisting quiet, constructive contributors. I've never understood it. If we took even a tiny fraction of the energy that was spent in trying to rehabilitate and reform (Abd|Anythingyouwant|The Devil's Advocate|Mattisse|insert incorrigibly toxic personality here), and instead spent it rewarding and facilitating good editors, we'd have a very different encyclopedia, and a very different community. MastCell ^Talk 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant

Hi, it's been a while--hope you're doing well. Care to shed some light on what is going on here and here? I've had no significant run-ins with this editor in the past. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Now that is a loaded question, Doctor. :) Let me think about whether there's anything I could say about Anythingyouwant and his editing that is both a) honest and b) won't get me kicked off Wikipedia. Suffice to say that you're not the first person to have this sort of run-in with him. You're in excellent company. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, just knowing that this is part of a broader pattern is reassuring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a pattern. Incidentally, I saw that he ragequit the Trump articles, but just be aware that it's just for show. He doesn't actually mean it, and he has no intention of leaving the Trump articles. He's not capable of staying away. I'm sure he never actually un-watchlisted the article, and I'd bet he's back within a week, if he isn't already. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, back already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP clarification

Following up your comment on the Rich talk page, can you help me understand why writing that Wikileaks offered a reward for info about his murder is a BLP violation? I'm having trouble understanding the link in your comments, but I do want to understand. I appreciate your patience with me about this. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a BLP violation, and I don't think I said that it was. What I'm saying is that the discussion needs to take into account not only the sourcing, but also the need to avoid victimizing, or worsening the victimization of, the article subject. That's not some weird requirement that I made up; it's a fundamental part of a fundamental policy. Right now the argument to include the material is basically "it's sourced!" And that is true, but it's not enough—not in the setting a non-public figure notable only for being the victim of a crime. The discussion also needs to address whether including this well-sourced information serves a valid encyclopedic purpose, and whether that purpose outweighs the distress that its inclusion is likely to cause. I don't know the answer, but a lot of people on the talkpage are pretending this isn't an important question. That's what prompted my comment. MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha thanks for the clarification - it makes more sense now. I can understand that viewpoint. I don't think it will be re-added anytime soon. The RFC is likely to end no consensus. But it was a good opportunity for me to learn a little bit more about the fine lines in certain topics. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

AN Notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Inadvertent casting of (what some interpret as) a supervote: how to fix?". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because various editors have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought they might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump. I am notifying them, and therefore am required to notify you as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

"hope—the most important thing in life"
... you were recipient no. 601 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:MastCell/user-rights.js

I've used this for some time, but it isn't working reliably now. I notice a notification on the page for it and that it hasn't been updated in a while. Have you had any other people with similar problems? It's probably my most useful script, so I'm disabling all kinds of stuff trying to debug this, not sure where the problem is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Hmmm. I haven't touched that script in over 4 years, so I suspect that something has changed in the MediaWiki API or the "hooks" and that has broken the script. I haven't heard of any other problems (and it seems to be working OK for me, still), but I'm not sure how many people besides you and me actually use it. We may be the entire user base, for all I know. :) I wish I could say I'll volunteer to help you debug it, but I don't really have the time or enthusiasm for the project to bother right now. Maybe it's just the election season, but this place seems even more overrun by irony-proof hypocritical half-wits and pathological obsessives—and more depleted of sane, interesting people—than ever. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, don't you be going anywhere. We need more of those sane and reasonable people, not fewer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I still use that script too! But yeah, I think it is out of date; it's probably this problem.

MastCell, if you're taking a break, couldn't you at least leave a clone or two behind? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I watch a lot of sci-fi, clones always look better on paper than in real life. But yes, how am I to know who is the winner at ANI if I don't know who has the most edits? ;) It really is handy for thinning problems, I don't care if someone has 3000 or 30000 edits, but often it helps to know they have 10 or 100 at a glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, how about we download MastCell's brain into a supercomputer? Nothing could possibly go wrong!

There's also the more verbose User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js, though that's pretty slow-loading too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Other options for viewing a user's rights or edit count, at a glance:

• User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js. View the user's rights by opening their user page or user talk page. Info appears in the top line of the rendered page.
• Navigation popups (enabled by going into the Gadget section of Special:Preferences, and putting a checkmark next to Navigation popups). Hover over a user name and see a tooltip with their rights and edit count. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty good. Funny, it doesn't show my start date, which is wrong on most places, as I got a name change in Nov 08 about the time SUL kicked in, so it shows 11-08 instead of 9-06. So not perfect, but good enough for my purposes. Thanks EdJohnston. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

1RR violation by Anythingyouwant in Trump article (what else)

This concerns the Trump article and basically Anythingyouwant removed the reference to the selective service guy stating that Trump's high lottery number was of little significance due to his medical exemption (1Y). I reverted this deletion since I believed that it was the only authoritative voice on selective service matters to be presented and further that therer had been no cogent evidence presented which refuted the fact that a 1Y classification would allow Trump to avoid the draft under any conceivable circumstances. Anything then proceeded to revert my revert, in apparent violation of 1RR, "do not restore content which has been reverted without consensus on talk page." FYI, I am particularly interested in this section of the article and feel that 1) it is buried in a section titled "Childhood and education" and 2) significant information has been deleted by Anythingyouwant and others. In July 2015, I noticed that there was absolutely no discussion of this matter (his Vietnam service or lack thereof) and wrote a paragraph describing it which remained relatively stable until 31 May 2016 when Anythingyouwant rewrote it. There was a discussion on the talk page which lead to no resolution since there appeared to be no other interest. My point in bringing this up is that Anythingyouwant seems to think that a 1 month interval makes an edit stable (which he somehow used to justify the apparent violation of 1RR) whereas he blithely rewrote a section which had been stable for close to a year. I have asked Anything to self-revert his insertion but he has refused. Your comments would be appreciated.Gaas99 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. My comments. OK, here's my opinion:

• If there's a clear 1RR violation, just take it directly to WP:ANEW. Anythingyouwant has a long history of edit-warring in service of his POV, and multiple blocks to show for it, so your report would likely be acted on quickly, as it's not exactly his first offense. Looking at the history, what I'm seeing is that he's made two reverts in about 29 hours. This is another pattern of his—waiting slightly more than 24 hours to bypass the technical 1RR requirement. He literally once reverted at 24:01, to skirt a 1RR restriction, and then complained incessantly after he was blocked for this obvious attempt to game the system. This is the kind of person you're dealing with. That said, it doesn't look like a clear-cut 1RR violation.
• My reading of Anythingyouwant's record here shows a litany of tendentious, agenda-driven behavior and often-deceptive gamesmanship when it comes to pushing his POV on political topics. Also, he will never, ever, ever give up or acknowledge that consensus has gone against him. Never. He'll just keep moving the goalposts and making up non-existent policy "requirements" (like the no-footnotes-in-the-lead nonsense) or new definitions and gradations of "consensus" to try to get his way. So you have to ask yourself whether the dispute at hand is worth dealing with someone like him. (He was one, although not the only, inspiration for rule #1 in the Cynic's Guide To Wikipedia). If it's truly an important issue (say, the accuracy of medical information on a controversial topic), then maybe it's worth pursuing. If it's something picayune, like which photo of Trump to use, or how to cover his avoidance of military service, then... meh. Your call. Just be aware that there is always a cost to interacting with someone like him, whether that cost is immediately obvious or not.

Separately, you should know that although I'm an admin, I have had sufficient (and sufficiently off-putting) interactions with Anythingyouwant that I would not, under any circumstances, take administrative action with regard to him. (He's also at least once tried to use Wikipedia to disparage me under what he believes to be my real-life name and identity). All I can give you is my opinion (which I've provided above). So if you're looking for an administrative response, you can either wait for a talk-page-watching uninvolved admin to comment, or you'll have to look elsewhere. You do have my sympathy, as I've been in your situation more than once. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and I thoroughly enjoyed your reference to rule #1 ! Unfortunately the issue of Trump's draft / military status (or lack thereof) is of personal importance to me and I probably will have to wrestle with the pig. I would like to see it covered to the extent that former presidents and presidential candidates were covered. I totally respect your reluctance to get involved. Gaas99 (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC close

This is pertaining to the Seth Rich article. This looks like an incorrect assessment to me. The first time I read it, it didn't make sense. The second time I read it, everything discussed regarding BLP issues seems to have been thrown out. Taking a look at the article itself, the WikiLeaks reward is back in along with some other award.

Now, there is an editor who appears to want to start the whole mess over again - [1] - by proposing (or more likely promoting) "that these rewards seem to have been political motivated (or at least, have a political dimension)" combined with "criticism"; and discussing conspiracy theories in the article; and adding that Rich's death was connected to his work at the DNC while noting sources are critical of the idea ("it would be fair to note that"), and make sure we mention the police have said "no indication that his death was connected to his work" along with something about "special knowledge" the police don't have.

Now here is the kicker, this person is actually seems to be proposing It might also be worth mentioning that Rich's family feel that the mere notion that there is a connection between his death and his work is a cynical and obscene effort to leverage his death as part of a political attack" (underline mine). There is a little more. And it's obvious from this person's other posts that these are his or her goals - it's not really about discussion. He or she has entitled this new section "Moving forward" - as you can see, a more accurate section title would be "Moving backward".

Any adivce? It's obvious the intention here is to cause a long drawn out contentious discussion. I am guessing, we will probably need some Admins to enforce BLP. In any case, I can't see how a long drawn out contentious discussion is going to be helpful or productive. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: I requested the removal of this section and hatted it [2], [3] - rationale is provided on the Seth Rich talk page and the edit history. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Steve Quinn, my two cents for what they are worth - if you want to challenge the close, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Basically, to go User talk:Dennis Brown and explain nicely to Dennis why you think the close doesn't comply with WP:CLOSE - your goal would be to persuade Dennis to withdraw or change his close. If Dennis doesn't agree and you are still convinced the close was incorrect, the next step is to go to WP:AN and try to persuade the other admins there to overturn it. That is the process to challenge a close. Clueful arguments are what persuade people; nothing else.

As to people wanting to add stuff to the article, the most we can hope for is that people do what they are doing - propose stuff on talk. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This is very helpful. I was wondering what the process is. And I agree that respectful and clueful arguments are always the suitable method for engaging in any discussion.

Thanks very much. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And yet you have not pursued that approach here, but rather chosen to refuse to WP:Assume good faith about the motivations of those who see the issue differently for you. You should have inquired about the appropriate process for challenging a closure before attempting to drag admins into the discussion to enforce your minority view and chill discussion about how to implement the consensus. You have grossly misrepresented my views here. The fact that you did so because you genuinely misinterpreted what I thought is not much cover for the inappropriateness of your actions; if you had not let yourself get worked to such a frenzy that you saw the absolute worst in everything anyone opposing you says, you would have read my post for what I intended it to say: that I agree with the way you view basic facts, but I simply disagree with how we need to approach the situation, editorially. Instead of taking me at face value, you chose to call me a liar. I've already made an effort] to clarify these issues with you on your talk page which you have not had a chance to respond to, but I will repeat one point here: accusing another editor of a bad-faith action without proof is considered a personal attack on this project, and if it continues after my most recent effort to clarify my position with you and assure you that I am being straight with you, I'll really have no choose but to seek administrative review of the matter; 90% of other editors would have already dragged you to ANI over that accusation and the other incivil comments on the talk page that are starting to become your status quo as you become more frustrated.

Likewise, hatting the comments of others, moving the comments of editors to different threads so that people seem to not be criticizing you directly, and other such tactics are likely to considered highly WP:Disruptive. I've only just now, with your short exchange here with Jytdog, become ware that you are relatively new to the project, so I do try to consider your actions in light of fact now. But I still will not stand still for being accused of being a liar on no other grounds than that you felt like I was opposing your view of things. What's more, your newness makes your self-confidence in accusing me of being improper in opening that thread harder to accept, because you should have been mindful that you might not be understanding the processes correctly here (you should also perhaps be more preoccupied with the question of whether you have the policy argument right). Point in fact, you are the one arguing against consensus, so you bear the burden of getting the decision reviewed, if you choose to. I am certainly not in error for trying to bridge the two sides in a debate that I arrived at only as a consequence of an RfC bot request. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Before people overwhelm this talk page - this is not a discussion about the RFC. This not the proper venue for challenging an RFC. There are proper channels and this isn't it. Right now I have decided not to pursue this, having gotten comfortable with the RFC decision. I doubt User:MastCell would appreciate having his talk page overwhelmed with a discussion that does not belong there. If anyone wants to challenge the RFC then please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but please discuss with the closing Admin first. Therefore, Slim Virgin's statement at the ANI is not correct ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi all: I'm fine with hosting this conversation, but I'm afraid I don't have much to add to it. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to be the "host". It is already taking place over at ANI. SV and some others kept the conversation going over there, if you want to take a look. Here is the link: WP:ANI Request an early close for Seth Rich RFC (this is an abridged title for the thread). If you scroll down you some new stuff that you might not have seen already. Someone also left a large bolded comment over there too (I imagine he was needlessly in a panic a-hem, a-hem!! (clearing throat)) Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, MastCell. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting advice

Hi MastCell, I have an issue in the Gloria Allred article. I reverted an edit from an anon editor User:97.87.116.23, shown here. I inserted a discussion on the Allred talk page here(see last few lines) and created a talk page with my comments for the anon user here. So, my question is: how best to proceed from here? Should I revert again with a commment to the anon user to read his talk page and discuss his rationale on the Allred talk page or should I go to one of the notice boards? Thanks Gaas99 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Quack websites

Any chance you might delete or blank User:MastCell/External link results please? I regularly review links to both those sites, and the shorter the list, the easier the job :-) Guy (Help!) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User page

Hello, I found your User-page inspiring - you have collected much wisdom over the past decade. Regards,  William Harris |talk  09:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi MastCell.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MastCell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871 AE close

Cheers for that, I fully intended to do it myself but real life got in the way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Black Diamond Capital Management

I wanted to let you know that I am in the process of creating a page for Black Diamond Capital Management, a page which I believe you deleted back in 2007. I was not the one who originally created the page but given the firm's coverage in RS, I thought I'd recreate the page and send you a quick note. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disregard - already deleted. Meatsgains (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

an unblock request for a block you made 9 years ago (!)

You remember this guy? I'm inclined to say OK with a topic ban from previous problem areas, mostly based on the rationale "geez, it's been 9 years", but thought I'd use this as an excuse to say hi. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Blanked your userscript for edit rights

Hi, your User:MastCell/user-rights.js was still in use by people, but is no longer compliant with current coding standards and was therefore causing errors for these people. I have thus blanked the page for now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. While I'm flattered that other people found it useful, I wrote it for my own use, and it's still working fine for me. I'm going to go ahead and restore it; if people are finding that it causes errors for them, then presumably a better solution would be for them not to use it, or to rewrite it for their own use. MastCell ^Talk 15:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

TM ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Manul ~ talk 17:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Nu Skin Infobox Key People Section

I noticed you are an active editor on the Nu Skin Enterprises page . I submitted a request on the talk page for a change in the Key People section of the Infobox on the right side. I just wanted to alert you so you can review, as I have a conflict of interest, being from 97th Floor, a marketing agency with Nu Skin as a client. The information is strictly informative and unbiased.

Jakevh28 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Jakevh28, 25 May 2017