User talk:MastCell

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Archives

(Date ranges are approximate)

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: i

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)[reply]

User:70.110.190.189

Hello, MastCell. I noticed that you recently blocked the anonymous user at 70.110.190.189 (the user in question has also edited from other 70.* addresses, and as User:Stevewk)- I just wanted to alert you that he appears to have returned, recognizable from his hostile edit warring pattern and pages of interest, as User:Gwilmont. I wasn't sure of the right avenue to pursue to deal with this problem, so I figured you might be able to advise me on it. I've been away from the Wikipedia project for a while and am trying to get reacquainted. Thanks. --ForbiddenWord 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious sockpuppet; I've blocked the account indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast reply! You're the man, MastCell! :) --ForbiddenWord 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

That list of links is helpful. Thanks for the tips and the support. It's all a bit overwhelming at first, but nothing I can't get used to. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time... no need to jump in everywhere at once. I think I made that mistake. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pending issue that has not been resolved this past week

Mastcell, please check out [[1]], as editor Apostrophe needs some additional encouragement to act with civility and not exhibit WP:BITE nor WP:NPA on his fellow editors, either in edit summaries nor on talk pages. This conduct has persisted for over a year, and he has been banned one time previous for this conduct without demonstrative changes in his behaviour. Thank you. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Cat

I'm not entirely convinced that Freddy Cat (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of David Cat as you concluded at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Cat. It could be...but his edits mimic Ockenbock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been attacking me for months on end now. It could be Ockenbock posing as David Cat, but, who knows. Metros 06:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any of those are possible, I suppose. Do you think it was wrong to block David Cat? MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakhungama

plz wht is the problem with this site.i didnt mean to advertise it.i just want people to know about its content.thats all.hope u understand.

Please take a look at the notability criteria for web content - basically, a Wikipedia article is intended to be encyclopedic and should show that the topic has been covered by independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby (Dragon Ball)

Did you have a look at the history of the Baby (Dragon Ball? Well, when you do, you'll see that me and Poetic Decay have constantly reveted some random fancruft put in by an IP user. Then maybe you'll reconsider your decision on not to protect the page MightyKombat 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did look at the article history and saw one vandalism revert a day or so over the last week. That's generally not enough to warrant semi-protection, at least not in my book. However, I'm willing to semi-protect it for a week to see how it works out - sometimes that's enough to discourage IP vandalism as people tend to move on. Again, though, in general that level of vandalism is best dealt with by reverting rather than locking the article. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well either way thank you and have a nice day.MightyKombat 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, the moment the page was unrpotected teh fancruft started again! MightyKombat 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, its prtected again. Is the protection permanent or does it just last longer? Either way thanks.MightyKombat 17:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected it for a month this time, in response to your note. If it becomes a problem again after that, we can extend it further. Eventually, it will end up indefinitely semi-protected if problems persist, but we tend to work our way up there rather than doing it permanently off the bat. If you have questions about when it expires, you can check the page logs (go to history, and there should be a link at the top saying "logs"). MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance on the Bates method page.

I have been trying to get rid of all the linkspam on the Bates method page for months now, only to be frustrated in my efforts by a certain other user. In the absence of any reliable sources supporting the efficacy of the Bates method, this user has resorted to citing customer testimonials and pages promoting the method, selling books about it, etc. Thanks for your intervention. I hope this puts an end to this episode. Famousdog 13:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's a shame to waste a lot of energy edit-warring over external links, when they are the least valuable part of the article from an encyclopedic standpoint (after all, if there's useful info there, it should be incorporated into the article, and the link cited as a source). I find that editors who focus their energy on inserting or retaining specific external links more often than not have a conflict of interest. Anyhow, many if not most of the links violated WP:EL, and perhaps if that issue gets put to bed, more effort could be focused on the article text instead of the links. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it will. On a related note, I'm not sure I understand your removal of the "see also" links on The Art of Seeing page. They aren't external links, and they are relevant to the topic of Huxley's book. Why do you describe them as "gratuitous"? Famousdog 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Bates method was already in the article, thus redundant in See Also. I did not see a clear connection from the article to the See Clearly Method. But I'm a newcomer, so if you feel strongly about the See Also's, feel free to restore them - it's not a big deal to me. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davenel03 user page vandalism

Thanks for picking this up for me. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for semi-protecting it. Davnel03 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raspor

Hi MastCell. You blocked one of Raspor's sockpuppets, Octoplus last week. Not two days later, another user popped up in the same articles with the same tendentious style in the talk pages, whom I believe is another sockpuppet User:TheBestIsYet of Raspor. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor (2nd). Moreover, User:TheBestIsYet keeps reverting the sockpuppet tag. I believe he's not supposed to do so, but maybe the rules have changed. Orangemarlin 19:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passive smoking article

I took your criticism into consideration and dutifully noted in my edit that the studies and arguments against the correlation are from a dissenting minority and do not represent the widely held view of the scientific community.

It is true that the majority believes the correlation, but that cannot be construed as to block out dissenting scientific criticism of the view.

-Mickey Klein

Can you please discuss your edits on the article talk page rather than re-inserting them? MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock the Iris ARG page

It has been fixed and is ready to be restarted.Xenocide321 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a wikilink to the page you're talking about? I can't find it. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Fudzilla

On what basis did you delete the Fudzilla page? The AfD was created by a clear sock puppet, whose entire edit history solely consisted creating the AfD and saying "Hi" on his user page. The "consensus" was 4 delete vs. 7 keep. It does not at all appear to be deleted "(Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fudzilla)." - MSTCrow 00:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to explain my rationale in depth on the AfD page; obviously you found it unsatisfactory. The best step, if you're unhappy with the outcome of an AfD, is to post it for review at deletion review. Or you could accuse me of sockpuppetry, I guess. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Due a previously unknown suspected puppetmaster, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:MastCell. - MSTCrow 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO. An admin being accused of being a puppetmaster? That makes my day. Sorry MastCell, but this is amusing. You're like the Superman of sockpuppet fighting on Wikipedia. Orangemarlin 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there have been a few high-profile cases of admin sockpuppetry recently, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility in general terms. This particular accusation seems a little far-fetched, as it posits that I created a sock to nominate an article for deletion, then waited till the AfD was overdue for closure and someone posted to AN/I, then answered the AN/I post and deleted the article. Seems like a lot of work. Anyhow, it was going to be a controversial AfD close no matter how you look at it; I think that MSTCrow is unhappy with the result and this is presumably just blowing off steam. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought you were controlled by aliens. But I wanted to assume some good faith and not attack you or the aliens personally. BTW, I'll lay odds that MSTCrow didn't realize you were an admin. Seriously, I hope they strung up any admin sockpuppets (unless good reasons were given). Talk about breaching the faith. Orangemarlin 06:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was aware, as my AfD closing and deletion of an article were what upset him. To be honest, it's his right to file a report - I hate it when admins appear "above the law". ArbCom has come down hard on admin sockpuppets - there was Henrygb, Runcorn, and one or two other recent high-profile cases, plus the occasional mutterings that there are more out there. It's made me participate more in RfA and apply more stringent standards, and even led to a proposal to run checkuser on all admin candidates. MastCell ^Talk 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I turn out to be wrong on this. The sockpuppet report did seem to require a listed sockpuppeteer, and as everyone agrees AMDZone is sockpuppet, I was forced to guess on whom the sockpuppeteer might be. I do hope that MastCell will accept my apologies if he's not the sockpuppeteer, and hopefully can help me to find out how to handle a definite sockpuppet with an unknown sockpuppeteer. - MSTCrow 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to deal with a fairly obvious sock when you don't know who the puppeteer is. Requests for checkuser won't take a report without a puppeteer identified, as "checkuser is not for fishing". There are a few options: watch the account for more evidence, or ask that the account be indefinitely blocked as an obvious sockpuppet regardless of who the puppeteer is. I was thinking of doing the latter, but at this point should probably not utilize any administrative tools in regard to this situation until the SSP report is cleared up. I'm sorry you're unhappy with the outcome of the AfD, and encourage you to list it at deletion review for more feedback if you feel the close was incorrect. As to the sockpuppet report, you are wrong about me being a sockpuppeteer, and I think looking at it objectively would indicate how far-fetched the posited chain of events is. It's up to you whether you want to withdraw it or wait for someone to formally address it. I'm not upset with you, because I think you're acting in good faith and are upset about the AfD. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I withdraw the sockpuppet case, and then maybe we can block the sock, and/or figure out who the sockpuppeteer is. - MSTCrow 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a skill to observing writing styles and seeing patterns between individuals. It's part of my nefarious background in the US Navy. That's how I detect socks pretty quickly. However, I usually wait until one or two other people I trust get the same impression. Then I file the sockpuppet complaint. If that doesn't get anywhere, I go for the checkuser. In the articles I edit, there are 2-4 different puppetmasters who keep sending sockpuppets out every few weeks. You can always tell, I'm convinced. Orangemarlin 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davnel03

Hi MastCell I'm going to be away from tomorrow until 25 July. Would you mind keeping an eye onDavnel03 for me until I get back? It's OK if you would rather not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

Hi there, the stalking accusation comes from me noticing that SV had created an article on Mark Purdey and his organophosphate hypothesis for BSE (discussed at WP:NOR). This has always been something I've been interested in, so I added some references and corrected a bad misstatement of the biochemical mechanism that he proposed. These changes were immediately reverted by SV, so I saw my input wasn't being viewed in a positive light and left well alone. I've decided that the personality clash between SV and myself has now become so bad that I think she will oppose any consensus wording that I support, so I'm going to withdraw from this discussion for a while. Hopefully things will calm down a little and when the page is unprotected there will not be an immediate return to edit warring. Tim Vickers 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for the clarification; there were quite a few accusations flying around, but I didn't see an immediate basis for that one. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... heavily published in Medical Hypotheses. A journal whose impact factor, on Wikipedia, is up there with Science and Nature. Interestingly, Med Hypoth is actually not peer-reviewed (hmm...) Anyhoo, given the current situation, I don't think I'll be setting foot anywhere near that article, but it made for interesting reading. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truthprofessor

You blocked several obvious sockpuppets, and the apparent sockpuuppeteer Truthprofessor. You then unblocked Truthprofessor, stating that, according to an earlier checkuser request, at least one of the sockpuppets was in a different hemisphere. Did you actually carry out your own checkuser into this latest case? Did you consider the possibility that the sockpuppets are being established via an anonymising/proxy service?

If you look at the pattern of edits of the suspected puppeteer and the obvious puppets, a clear and consistent pattern emerges. You should also look at the very similar case of Zuminous, where an identical pattern of behaviour appears. In the case of Truthprofessor, all of the edits are to the article on Steven Plaut; in the case of Zuminous, to the article on Barry Chamish, with whom Plaut has long been in conflict. I would ask you to look at this again, including the actual content of the edits, and to reconsider your latest decision. Thank you. RolandR 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have checkuser access, so I'm not able to confirm whether a proxy or anonymizer is being used. Given the negative checkuser previously, I didn't find enough evidence to keep him blocked. However, if you're suspicious you could request another checkuser, with particular attention to whether he's using a proxy. In general, the checkusers are pretty good at picking up on stuff like that, though. Truthprofessor has not been editing actively since May, but if he ramps up then you could consider re-checkusering him. Based on the evidence I have available, though, I wasn't comfortable keeping him blocked at this point. Nonetheless, if more socks show up, I'll be happy to block them. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with access is welcome to try CheckUser on any of my alleged uses of sockpuppets. These socks have nothing to do with me. Truthprofessor 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Please remove the tags identifying me as the puppetmaster from the pages of the socks wrongly attributed to me. Thanks. Truthprofessor 18:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow cholangiocarcinoma editor

I saw the RFCU and removed my name. You hadn't put my name but Jersyko added it. He hates me. The explanation for my removal is reproduced below:

Jersyko claims secret, unpublished checkuser info stating that I am in the similar range as Derek. Jimbo Wales investigated, received private identity information and determined that I am not Derek[[2]]. As you know, Jimbo Wales practically never intervenes like this. Therefore, a RFCU on me will yield no useable information (either I am in the same range and not Derek per Jimbo Wales OR I am not in the same range and also not Derek per Jimbo Wales.) VK35 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x is an idiot and not worthy of comparison to me, with my edits on cholangiocarcinoma, HFPV (ventilator), nearly 50 new articles created, vast information about Singapore edited, etc. I believe Jersyko is mad because I said I was willing to informally mediate with him and Feddhicks, whom he blocked during a content dispute in a WP:FAR (featured article review)VK35 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno anything about those accounts. I only listed HappyFarmer, because it seemed highly likely he was a sock and his edits made it seem like he was Dereks1x. MastCell ^Talk 05:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mast Cell I Hope You Do Not Plan to Dismantle the ECA Stack Article

Hello, I wandered into the article you spoke of on my talk page called ECA Stack from thermogenics. I did not know it was you who put those massive amounts of citation needed tags into the article and the messages at the top that the article is in dispute. My removing of these tags was not a personal attack on you because I did not know it was you who added the tags because I did not look into the history of who did what. I just saw that an effort was underway to dismantle an article that I was interested in and I wanted to defend the article to prevent it from being dismantled peice by peice. Like I said I did not know that it was you who put the tags into this article and me removing them was not a personal attack on you. I was once skeptical like you concerning the ECA stack and I researched this subject and discovered much more on thermogenics then just the ECA stack. I educated myself on the biochemical processes that underlie thermogenesis. I tried the ECA Stack and I can tesify that it does work. It does artificially boost your metabolism and raise body tempurature. Much of the information in all the articles are the result of people adding their own knowledge on a subject from material that they have read long ago and no longer remember from which sources they gained this knowledge. If every article was dismantled for lack of references Wikipedia would be a very shallow place to get educated on any subject. Like I said I was not making a personal attack on you just defending the article from what appeared to be an effort to dismantle it and reduce it to nothingness. See my recent addition to the thermogenics article. Under the circumstances that I removed the tags it is not vandalism because you seem to be the only one who is contesting the contents of the article. Dr CareBear 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Help me find sources. Don't remove the tags. Continuing to do so is vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 05:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will not remove them again. Dr CareBear 06:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE Schizophrenia Article is having display problems. PLEASE LOOK AT IT.

The heading "Screening and Prevention" is being run together with "Mortality" and the references at the bottom are not being displayed properly. This appears to be a bug in the Wikipedia programing and since you are an Admin I thought that maybie you know how to get this problem corrected. Please look at the section called Mortality in Schizophrenia and see how the heading "Screening and Prevention" is being run together with Mortality. To see that this is so click on EDIT by mortality and see that two sections are listed inside and the Heading called "Screening and Prevention" is being truncated and Wikipedia is treating these two sections as if they are one. Also the references are not being displayed correctly at the bottom of the page and it appears that the error starts with the Mortality section. Look in the History at my bewildered attempt to get it to display properly please. Dr CareBear 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the suicide/akathisia references to the akathisia article....

You did a good job in digging up these references. I am impressed. But I must point out that the last article is about treatment resistent schizophrenia not schizophrenia in general. I posted this message below in the akathisia talk page with your very good references.

"This last study is not on schizophrenia in general but treatment resistent schizophrenia. People resistent to treatment are resistent to the drugs so therefore would not be affected by side effects so much like akathisia so logically would not be compelled to committ suicide because they are not suffering."

Please add these references to the akathisia article because they would be a fine addition to the article. Perhaps adding them will encourage more research and attention on the this important subject. Dr CareBear 06:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on adding them; it's on my to-do list, but I keep getting bogged down with other stuff. MastCell ^Talk 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was clearly a meatpuppet at least

Only reason I requested a CheckUser was to establish definitive proof that he was sockpuppeting to let his defenders know who they were defending. Blueboy 96 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be assured that it is a sock or meatpuppet. If you want to go through with the checkuser, just leave a note asking them to do it anyway, but I think it's a pretty clear-cut sock. As to his "defenders", I have my suspicions about some of them as well. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, they seem to be established users ... the only remotely suspicious one is Jonathanischoice--but he's in New Zealand. Iantresman is British. Blueboy 96 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive, but Girls4girls was editing from an open proxy. Blueboy 96 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

format fix

Thank you for fixing the format on my alleged sockpuppet accusation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afcyrus (talk • contribs).

FDA conspiracy theory deletion

As the original author, I must admit my irritation at the deletion of "FDA conspiracy theory" so quickly. Until now, I hadn't logged on in 8 days, but I guess that's enough time for you to delete an article you don't like. I read the official WP references on "speedy deletion rules," ordinary deletion, and "What Wikipedia is not," and I saw nothing that applied to the article I wrote. Here in the U.S. there is a constant media barrage by people (usually selling "natural" products), claiming that the FDA is corrupt, not looking out for the best interest of the people, and other accusations. I'll admit that the article might have used more links to verifiable sources, but every other article I've seen with this problem seems to get a pass and only receive "citation needed" at the end of the sentence in question.

There is no doubt that there is such a conspiracy theory (as described) in existence, and it is common here. Even the "List of conspiracy theories" has it listed. I believe other pages linked to it as well. Would you be so kind as to explain why this page-long article - one that someone (i.e. me) spent a lot of work writing. Had I known it was in that bad of shape, I would have been happy to alter it so as to bring it in line with any specific issues you had with it. Instead, it appears that you just trashed it after (only) one person weighed in. I wish you had given me more than the short deletion notice you did give me. If 5 days is the official amount of time people have to vote on an article, perhaps it should be increased. I can't imagine every Wikipedian logs in daily - or even every 5 days.

The truth is that in the past, present, and future, people will believe what the charlatans tell them whether there is a WP article or not. But, I would bet that most WP users would agree that the article you deleted belongs in any resource that also covers conspiracy theories (as WP does).

In any case, having read the various examples of what is and is not acceptable, I still haven't a clue as to why you deleted the article. I would appreciate it if you would please let me know specifically why you chose to delete the "FDA conspiracy theory" article. I would also appreciate knowing why this article was deleted, as opposed to explaining what was wrong with it so that I/we had a chance to save it. ZZYZX 09:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the article; I tagged it for proposed deletion, and as there was no objection in 5 days another admin must have deleted it. As I recall, my concern was that it was mostly original research, and constituted a content fork; there are already pages on FDA and Criticism of the FDA, so if there is sourced info about conspiracy theories, it could be folded into those instead of creating yet another FDA-related fork. Anyhow, I'd recommend contacting the admin who deleted the page (I believe it was User:Ragesoss, looking at the page logs) and ask him to undelete it. Prod's can generally be undone if there's an objection, even after the 5-day period. I have to say, though, that my concerns remain and I would have to consider sending it to WP:AfD for community input. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. From what I could tell based upon the information still available, someone indicated that the article sounded like an "advertisement for Kevin Trudeau" (my paraphrasing). When I wrote the article, it was based upon Trudeau's and others' conspiracy theory, but (if anything) it was anti-Trudeau and I described the conspiracy theory as they believed it, pointing out the problems with their hypotheses. It's possible, even likely, that someone else trashed it in such as way as to make it sound pro-Trudeau (i.e. pro-BS), since I hadn't checked it in weeks, if not months.

Like I said, I'd be happy to find references to areas that appear to be original research. In any case, thanks for pointing the way to the proper admin and for giving me the proper direction to deal with this appropriately. Assuming that I get the chance to improve the article, I'll also keep your initial criticisms in mind. ZZYZX 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry blocks

MastCell, thanks for your reviewing and extending this block. As I said on ANI, I wanted other sysops to review, because this isn't my area. Can you clue me in on what led you to decide 72 hours was appropriate? Of all the endless policy and guideline pages on WP, we don't have anything guiding us about appropriate block length (which I've always found difficult to square with blocks not being punitive, but that's another story). In any case, thanks again.--Chaser - T 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally use 72 hours for the sockmaster - it's based on what I saw other admins do when I started monitoring the WP:SSP board. If it appears to be a generally honest mistake, or it's a real newbie, I usually go with 24 hours or no block at all, but this was a particularly flagrant case in that User:Stillstudying was very aggressive and claimed up and down that there was nothing doing. Anyhoo, it's all a judgement call, but I felt the case warranted more than 24 hours. Of course, it may be moot if User:Stillstudying really has left Wikipedia, but lots of people say they're leaving and then are "convinced" to stick around (it happened once with Stillstudying already). MastCell ^Talk 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MastCell.--Chaser - T 02:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack?

I don't think this was an attack. You're wrong dude --KaragouniS 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever you'd like to call this, please don't do it anymore. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo lover

I suspect that user:Oppisite dude is a sockpuppet of Komodo lover/Komodo lover (2nd), who you recently blocked for previous sockpuppetry. Komodo lover (2nd)'s contributions are almost identical to [Oppisite dude's], being on the same articles and consisting of the same sort of reverts that Komodo lover enacted. I came to you since you blocked this user previously, and was unclear on the procedure for a user who has apparently committed numerous acts of sockpuppetry. Do you have any advice? Lucky number 49 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contribs match Komodo lover's pattern pretty closely. I've indefinitely blocked the account as a fairly obvious sockpuppet. You can come here, go to WP:AN/I, or open a new report at WP:SSP. The first two are probably fastest. MastCell ^Talk 03:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Lucky number 49 03:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding warning of User:Mehicdino

I saw that you said you warned User:Mehicdino, and that if he reverted anymore, he'd be blocked. I just thought I'd let you know that he has indeed continued reverting the Avenged Sevenfold page. I don't know where exactly you're going to go from here, but I just thought I'd let you know that he's continued reverting the page. --Boa Drumm er 06:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; no need to file another 3RR report. I've blocked him for 31 hours. He does seem incorrigible; if he goes right back to edit-warring when the block expires, you can let me know and he will warrant a longer block. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Just an FYI that he's changing the genre yet again, although not as much as he was in the past. I dunno if that warrants another block, but he is violating the consensus in the Avenged Sevenfold discussion page. --Boa Drumm er 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you find an admin to investigate a reported case of Sock Puppeteering

The incident is here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XAndreWx

Sprigot 08:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to it. SSP cases take a long time, and at present there aren't too many admins active there. I will note that XAndreWx was blocked, by me, for 3RR violation, and the IP has not edited since, so let's see what happens there. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry

Thanks, I'll be more careful concerning 3RR. DIREKTOR 08:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block KaragouniS for personal attacks

[3][4] Argyriou (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, can you close Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007 July 17#Template:User Northern Cyprus as a bad-faith nom and/or per SNOW? Argyriou (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked KaragouniS for 12 hours for baiting and harassment on your talk page. I'll look at the TfD but can't promise anything there. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCdave?

I think it was you who, a couple of weeks ago, was talking about opening an RfC for NCdave. Then, of course, NCdave went away, but now, of course, he has returned, more tendentious than ever. So how about that RfC? Yilloslime 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's in order; if we don't address his behavior through dispute resolution, then he will be able to single-handedly stall the article. However, note that he has just been blocked for 1 week for violating 3RR. I think the question will be what his behavior is like when he returns - if it's right back to the same tendentiousness, then I think an RfC is in order. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that he'd just been blocked. So, yes, I agree: the question has become, "What will his behavoir become..."Yilloslime 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, as the oncologists say. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Health Organization Report "Controversy"

Following your encouraging words, I have added my contribution to the current debate on Passive Smoking. See [5] Best regards,

--Dessources 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorectal cancer

For the umpteenth time I'm having a mindless discussion with Jonathan108 (talk · contribs). He has been around for years trying to push the view that colorectal cancer (and appendicitis and haemorrhoids etc) is not caused by a diet deficient in fibre but by the way in which people defaecate. He invokes the legendary Denis Burkitt, whose fibre theory is apparently "disproven" (by a single study in JAMA) but whose lesser-known squat toilet theory must therefore be correct.

I have tried to explain that he is pushing a POV that is not widely held, and that he should read WP:WEIGHT. All the same, I'd highly appreciate your opinion in this discussion (largely on my talkpage). JFW | T@lk 06:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had noticed that squat toilets were once again a hot topic, mostly because of the proliferation of Tojo sockpuppets who showed up. I will take a look. MastCell ^Talk 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stevewk

Hi, Mastcell! I remember you helped me with Stevewk's sockpuppet account User:Gwilmont, so I supposed you might be able to give me an opinion on further behavior by the same user. I just (at User:Pmanderson's request) opened a section at WP:ANI regarding Stevewk continuing to pursue the edit war regarding the book template being on Edward Gibbons' articles. I didn't know where to take the issue, and he advised me to say something there about it. If you could let me know if I handled it right, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JPANDS

Would you consider Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons a reliable source? Someone is trying to insert J Gordon Edwards quotes from JPANDS into the DDT article. Yilloslime 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikipedia article on the journal sums it up nicely (OK, maybe I'm biased since I contributed to it). Basically, it needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt. Despite its intentionally vanilla title, the journal's agenda is overtly political rather than scientific, as evidenced by a brief skim of topics covered (e.g. that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens lifespan by 20 years, that evolution is a humanist conspiracy to destroy religion, or that abortion causes breast cancer).

On a more objective level, the journal is not indexed by MEDLINE, which is a pretty major red flag (of course, the presence of MEDLINE indexing doesn't prove anything much about a journal's quality, but its absence speaks volumes). Quackwatch lists it as a "non-recommeneded" journal (though Quackwatch carries its own baggage). But perhaps Brian Deer put it best when he called it "the house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group... barely credible as an independent forum." Bottom line: I don't consider it a reliable source for a scientific claim (see some of the examples of "findings" published in the journal that I've listed above). MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I totally agree, but if I revert the edits and say simply that JPANDS isn't a WP:RS then I'm sure it's going to be an uphill battle—unless there is a precident or consensus statement somewhere that I can point to that says that JPANDS is out of bounds. I believe that I saw something along these lines all LaRouche publications, is there something like this for JPANDS?Yilloslime 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only. I mean, I would argue, based on the above, that JPandS does not have the "reputation for accuracy" which is central to a reliable source, but it would have to be hashed out on the talk page, I think. The alternative, as JPandS is clearly a partisan source, is that its agenda should be briefly described in the article where it's cited (e.g. "In an editorial in the politically conservative, non-MEDLINE-indexed journal JPandS...") By the way, if the editor in question is User:Don't lose that number, they seem to have an indef-block-hammer about to drop on them for incessant LaRouche POV-pushing (see WP:RfArb. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed User:Don't lose that number of which I speak. Maybe I'll bide my time, and hope for the hammer to drop. Is worth me adding a comment to the RfARB about the LaRouche POV pushing at DDT or not? Or is RfARB an admin-only thing that I can't participate in anyway.Yilloslime 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my book their greatest sin is their anti-vax agenda. That one actually costs lives, the lives of children. That's about as low as one can get. -- Fyslee/talk 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Yilloslime: No, anyone can comment at RfArb, though how much weight is assigned varies. In this case, though, it seems that they're likely to be blocked for WP:BLP violations and posting links defamatory information/attack sites. The fact that they've been unable to refrain from LaRouche POV-pushing is certainly not helping the case, though. I would let it run its course if I were you, as the main issue seems to be the BLP thing in which you are not involved. As to the anti-vaccination agenda, I agree, though their efforts to paint undocumented immigrants as disease-ridden epidemics-in-waiting, their homophobia, their insistence on healthcare as a privilege rather than a right, and the abortion-breast cancer pseudoscience scare tactics make it hard to pick a favorite. The only good thing is that their agenda is quite obvious, aside from their recent name change (which is clearly intended to provide a facade of respectability). It's actually harder to deal with the "front" journals and organizations which do a better job at hiding their agendae. MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passive smoking mediation

Thanks for pointing that out to me - you were half-right saying I'm busy - I'm actually on holiday, so haven't been checking wikipedia often enough to pick up on stuff like that, and it's always the way with the controversial articles that if you leave them a week you have to steel yourself to trawl through four pages of talk page edits - and I just wasn't able to this time!

That said, I appreciate your bringing the mediation to my attention. I'm not going to join the parties officially involved in the dispute, as I'm off to West Africa for two months on Sunday and so won't be around after that for some time. However, I completely support your position on this - the proposed changes to the article breach WP:Weight, frequently WP:NPOV, all the guidelines on proper sources, and are fundamentally original research on the part of the proposers. There are exceptions - those who have posted sources have done so legitimately, and I was almost convinced by that last one until I read your debunking of it! - but at heart I believe you are wholly in the right.

So I'll continue to monitor the page as best I can until the weekend, and after that I'll see how it looks in October. If there's anything specific I can do to help in the short time before I go, please do let me know. Nmg20 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - it might be worth asking the powers-that-be to check the identities of Chido and Mickeyklein; it's probably nothing, but some of their posting styles remind me of User:AcetylcholineAgonist, User:BlowingSmoke and the other identities which were associated with that user. There was a checkuser request Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke up. Might be nothing, but every time I see a new editor coming in being vociferous, and accusing all and sundry of harrassing people etc. it rings bells. Nmg20 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick vote

Nothing big, just an AFD I have started that seems somewhat up your alley: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Halvorsen JFW | T@lk 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

142.150.205.250

is continuing as 142.150.205.251 ... --Kim D. Petersen 01:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and now as 142.150.205.252 - suggest range block? --Kim D. Petersen 01:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These (all) appear to be blocked User:Mapiwef. Hal peridol 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock puppets of Jing13

Habbo sg and Heavyboatman seem to be sock puppets of Jing13. They both primarily edit the City Harvest Church articles and seem to be very protective of that article, much like Jing13 and the former banned sockpuppets. Jing13 has been proven here by you yourself before that he/she is a sockmaster.Potomacish 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dandy Walker

Hi. Regarding "improper synthesis" at the Terri Schiavo article, please see my comment at the talk page. Thanks.Ferrylodge 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there. Dandy-Walker... really. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there too.Ferrylodge 05:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you once again for blocking another sockpuppet of MinutesToRise/AFI-PUNK. It is very much appreciated. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long, but as you can see, the WP:SSP board is a bit understaffed at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. I completely understand. However, other editors who were also dealing with him were getting fairly impatient. I'm just glad it was sorted before I go holidays :D. Thanks again. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 17:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re Hxseek & Hxseeker

Thanks. I was just writing up an ANI for them when I saw your intervention. Much appreciated! --Ronz 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. SSP gets backlogged quite frequently, so it takes awhile to get there. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of image

I received a message from you at my talk page. I did not upload the image in question.Ferrylodge 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol

Incidentally, what is the record for the shortest time between RfA and going rouge?

Just caught this. ROFLMAO. :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, incidentally, while we're on the subject: do you think it would be incredibly objectionable of me to 1) re-upload a freshly deleted unfree image (deleted under WP:CSD#I6) and 2) add a valid, reasonable rationale? I'd ask at AN, but I don't think it's really worth a thread—just a quick query. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from an image-policy expert, but I think it would be fine if you have a valid fair-use rationale that wasn't evident when the image was deleted. I will feel bad if you're de-sysopped over it, though. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've always been a stalwart defender of album covers—I uploaded a bunch of them in my early days at WP, and I think there are still a few missing rationales way back in my upload log... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox

It was substed anyway. Plus, that specific use is harassment - see this. Will ^(talk) 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. He's trying to annoy you. But putting a userbox on his own page which doesn't mention or allude to you in any way, with a rude edit summary in one instance, is not actionable harassment. On the other hand, repeatedly removing what is, for now at least, a legitimate userbox from someone else's userspace and calling them vandals for reinserting it is, conceivably, harassment or at least edit-warring. I'm asking you to stop, or at the very least bring this up at AN/I instead of repeatedly reverting his page. MastCell ^Talk

Uh... WP:POINT? Will ^(talk) 20:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT arguments, at this juncture, would seem to apply to both of you. I'm going to post this to AN/I for feedback and in an attempt to defuse this before it goes any further. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry extended, or innocent error?

MastCell, I filed a WP:SSP on Jebbrady a few days ago. According to the archive here, you then put a one-week block on the then-current puppet, a note on his talk page, and a warning to me that he might start to use yet another different (possibly dynamic) IP. You were right, he has — but on the chance this is just innocent error because he truly doesn't understand why using multiple IP accounts instead of a single master identity is wrong, I hesitate to file a SSP update the way I would against someone I was sure was consciously evading a block. For today at least he has consistently typed in his Wiki user name after the new IP address tilde sig, which I think is a show of good faith. He's still patchy about signing his talk contribs consistently, but when he remembers he's been good about manually identifying the new anon IP as himself.

Though using an anon IP at all instead of using either his named account or the IP as you explicitly told him to do is flouting your block, I don't think it's malicious. Although there are instances where he's engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I don't think this is one of them.

Would you be willing to gently expand on the importance of using a single account for him, or should I file the update? I'd really rather not, because I'm the complaining party in a WP:WQA with him, but I will if you advise it. The new puppet is 208.253.158.36 which you can find by Control-F on the article talk page or on my own user talk page. Also please control-F the phrase "not exactly scandalous" on the Armstrong talk page for his explanation of why he's using multiple IP's (instead of a single named WP account). I'm not clear on why he can't just log in from work, using his regular user name instead of an anonymous IP with the name manually typed in after the tilde sig. That muddles up the contribs and talk records, which is why I'm following up on the IP/identity hopping/sockpuppet issue at all. The WP:WQA may go to mediation, and it would be easier on the mediators if his activity wasn't spread out over so many different user contribs & user talk pages. Thank you for your time handling the initial SSP; I hope you'll have time to deal with this informally, but I'll understand if you don't. -- Lisasmall 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note asking him to try to remember to log in. I agree, I don't think there's any malicious intent or true sockpuppetry here, since he generally acknowledges that the IP edits are his, but it does make things confusing on such a contentious issue. That said, he's not breaking any policy per se, so hopefully he'll be willing to make the effort to log in as a gesture of working toward consensus. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Itzwiki warning

Per your edit here please give new editors a bit more warning, and lets not go with a last warning on the first time. Somitho 06:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]