User talk:MastCell

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:

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]

American Legislative Exchange Council again

Hi, Mast. Your closure of the Luke 19 Verse 23 thread was indeed "glorious", as Bulwersator observed. I thought you might like to know that IP 209.6.69.227 set up archiving on the ALEC page, which resulted in the talk page thread where you added so many sources rolling immediately to archives. That thread, as you may recall, was about a professor named William Cronan who was targeted with FOIA requests re his work computer activity after he criticised ALEC.

You objected to Lionelt's suggestion that the Cronan section in the article was wp:undue. What you might not be aware of is that he subsequently deleted all mention of Cronan from the article. Anyway, I pulled the thread back to the talk page, added to it, and restored the William Cronan section to the article. Thought you'd be interested, since you'd commented repeatedly in the now-restored thread. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bet my best bottle of Scotch that 209.6.69.227 (talk) is operated by one or a group of people affiliated with ALEC. Which means it's pretty much hopeless - you can't write an encyclopedic article in the face of a highly active agenda-driven editor like that. First of all, you can expect exactly zero support in trying to deal with the obvious conflict of interest embodied in that IP editor. Secondly, you can expect zero support in trying to deal with hard-core agenda-driven single-purpose editors. The problem is that the editor(s) behind that IP care deeply and almost solely about ALEC. I don't, and I suspect you don't, so eventually we'll find better things to do and leave the article to them. I don't mean to be overly cynical, and I will probably re-visit the article at some point, but I can't imagine any less rewarding way to spend Memorial Day weekend than trying to deal with an ALEC-affiliated agenda-driven IP editor backed by Lionelt. Remind me in a week or two to look back at the article, and good luck. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MastCell. It shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm only surprised that so many articles actually remain unbiased by strong POV editing - though I fear that Wikipedia is headed in that direction. Gandydancer (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have the same impression of 209.x re COI; your scotch is in no danger, MastCell. I'd really prefer not to care about the ALEC article, myself; I try to avoid articles about American politics. And I didn't care, when I first looked in on the article. But after seeing 209.x and a few others ( Lionelt just gave 209.x a barnstar ) who camp there expunge even overwhelmingly well-sourced content with ostensible "policy" arguments that wouldn't persuade an intelligent seven-year old... well, I take offence at that.

I do so because I want to be able feel at least some pride in Wikipedia, and it irritates me to see people make poor Wikipetan into their propaganda bitch. ALEC's principal activity is to create model bills, and the group camped out there has (so far) expunged all but one short sentence that gives any indication at all as to what those model bills have been about... Right, then; end of rant, but I'm afraid you're both correct that it's far too easy for a few "hard-core agenda-driven single-purpose editors" to wear down those whose primary allegiance is to the project, rather than to a "cause". I'll ping you again on this, though, in a week or two, since you're open to that. Thanks to both of you for your thoughts on this. --OhioStandard (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting through ArbCom protection...

As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci‎‎, you appear to have overlooked the fact that I protected User:Aixoisie/file and User:Aixoisie/file1 as an ArbCom action, to facilitate the other arbitrators' ease in seeing exactly what the pages said. Since several appear to not yet have had an opportunity to review them (it is, after all, a holiday weekend in the US), I'd appreciate it if you would restore them; while I appreciate your promptness, an ArbCom member will remove them when they are no longer needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Us non-admins would appreciate it too. Some of us are getting very interested in what ArbCom does. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Since all of the Arbs are able to view deleted content, I don't see how my action makes it any more difficult for them to evaluate the material in question. And I don't see the purpose served by restoring public visibility to material which, after all, ArbCom ordered deleted by fiat. I decline to restore the material, because I believe it should remain deleted. But if you or another admin chooses to undo my deletion, then I will not wheel-war or re-delete it. As you know, Arbitration Committee membership does not confer special executive powers on individual arbitrators. If you are acting on behalf of a consensus of the Committee, rather than as an individual Arbitrator, then please let me know and I will of course do as the Committee requests.

Also, please don't bother saying things like "I'm sure you didn't actually mean to hide evidence of wrongdoing preserved for an ArbCom review". It's beneath you, since you know I'm neither trying to hide, nor actually hiding, anything from the Committee. And when you attempt to cow people with those sorts of veiled threats, it suggests that you're aware that your actions lack a rational basis in policy. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Party USA

Hello MastCell. I recently noticed the SPI in which you uncovered that user NP was a sockpuppet of user TP (see here). There is another account I wanted to bring to your attention here, that edited concurrently with user TP in April 2010 (same article, Coffee Party USA), with similar characteristics. In this somewhat cryptic edit, they make reference to creating additional accounts to continue their edits. They haven't edited for quite some time know, but I wanted to make you aware of it in case it was a sleeper. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any duck-hunter would agree those are the same editors, but I doubt we'll see any more edits from that specific account. However, this static IP 207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs) of his is seeing renewed activity (within the past few days), and poses a problem. Can an IP registered to New York State Unified Court System be blocked? Or is monitoring it the best we can do? There is no doubt the blocked editor is using that IP, as he admits here, and again here -- and in this edit he says the name 'Manoa' should be removed from an article, which he then goes ahead and removes with his TruthfulPerson sock account here. I noted this 207.x.x.x IP on the previous SPI page for this editor, but nothing came of it. IPs 24.193.146.216 (talk · contribs) and 98.116.75.221 (talk · contribs) are also in use by the now blocked editor. Those appear to be newer versions of his old IPs: 24.193.146.146 (talk · contribs) and 98.116.113.166 (talk · contribs), also listed on the old SPI page. I suppose he wasn't kidding when he said an endless supply of IPs and accounts are available to him. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible to block an IP registered to the New York state court system, but I don't see a lot of recent activity from 207.29.40.2 (talk). And the contribution log suggests that the IP, which is after all a proxy server for the court system, is probably being used by multiple people. I think the best approach in dealing with editors using dynamic or multiple IPs is to semi-protect the target articles; if you see these IPs actively editing a specific article, please let me know and I'll look into it. As an aside, if block evasion becomes a persistent problem, most states have laws against using state-owned computer systems or other information-technology resources for partisan political purposes, but I'm not sure that would be a productive road to go down. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus theory

Mast, in looking for something else in CONS, I came across your ideal vs. reality edit. While I agree from my own experience that that's true, I was wondering what you thought that it contributed to that policy? Should that recognition have some practical effect or create some practical consideration in regard to consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I love your user page and the good sense of humor you show. Now ... back to writing articles! Bearian (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best with Scotch

For your reading pleasure... Sources:American Legislative Exchange Council. Of course the pleasure bit is on account of the Scotch. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to believe that the editors at American Legislative Exchange Council will respect independent, reliable sources, even when they conflict with editors' personal agendas. Of course, I'd also like to believe that someday I'll be part of a three-way with Ségolène Royal and Naomi Klein. I'm not sure which belief is more realistic. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I was the gambling type I'd go with the french girls, but you gotta have dreams. On a slightly related issue, this looks interesting. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warren, again, 05 June 2012

Below is a warning that I placed on the talk page of Gandydancer (talk) today. He has reverted other editor's edits several times in the last 24 hours. I remember that you blocked me even before I passed 3RR when I was editing the Elizabeth Warren article. I'm just trying to figure out why I was pre-emptively blocked for 3RR, but editors such as Gandydancer get a free pass. I went to the talk page, as you suggested that I do, when I made the edit today. I explain there why the information is not-notable and not relevant. Gandydancer did NOT go to the talk page and discuss the topic with me before he reverted me. The information is not notable or relevant to the topic of Elizabeth Warren. It is merely a person explaining how difficul it is to do ancestry research. The person does not speak to Warren specifically. The person doesn't provide even an opinion, much less a new fact on Warren's situation. Many editors have expressed the opinion that the Indian ancestry section is getting too long and cluttered, but when I remove irrelevant, non-notable information I am reverted, by an editor who is over 3RR, and that editor does not provide any discussion on the matter. Also, you are an admin who has been watching the article and you blocked me with the claim that I needed to slow down. However, when Gandydancer violates 3RR nothing. I'm just confused. Can you explain to me why you decided to enforce the pre-emptive 3RR for me, but the regular 3RR for Gandydancer does not apply? (1) Revert 1, (2) Revert 2, (3) Revert 3, and (4) Revert 4. --Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what you're calling Revert 1 and Revert 2 are actually two consecutive edits by Gandydancer, and thus constitute a single revert (per policy). Secondly, the edits you've cited span a time frame greater than 24 hours. That's why I haven't blocked Gandydancer. Arguably, he could be blocked for general edit-warring that doesn't quite reach the 3RR threshold - but if I went down that route, I'd be blocking at least two other editors as well.

In any case, I'm hardly the final word on the matter; if you disagree with my take on it, you're welcome to report edit-warring at the relevant noticeboard. You should be aware that if you do so, your own revert-warring will come under scrutiny as well. I think the most likely administrative intervention at this point would be page protection, given the high volume of multilateral reverts flying back and forth, but if you'd like to pursue it then that's the proper forum. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not afraid to have my edits reviewed because I was not engaging in an edit war. I was just editing. It is you and Gandydancer who believe that when I edit I am somehow "edit warring." One man's ceiling is another man's floor. Also, I am just pointing out to you the obvious double standard here. You did not block me the other day for 3RR. You blocked me because you claimed that I was "edit warring." That is an all purpose "I'm just gonna block you" kind of reason. It applies whether I make one edit or 500 edits. But back to the double standard, I noticed that you choose not to pull out the generic "edit warring" claim on Gandydancer, even though you did pull out the claim on me earlier. That's fine. That's your prerogative as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Wikipedian admin. Yes, I know that I am not to question the great Oz, but like Toto I feel the need to pull back the curtain on the actions of admins. Have a good day! I'll go now and just wait for you to find a reason to block me for expressing my opinion which just happened to be different than yours. Best,--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm hardly the last word on the matter. I don't have any special powers or prerogatives above the other 1,000+ admins on this project, and I think you're doing yourself a disservice by personalizing the matter. As a general matter, I think you'll find that people here will respond better to a less combative and less passive-aggressive tone, but you're free to take or leave that advice as you see fit. If you're not happy with my answer here, you're welcome to go to the edit-warring noticeboard and file a report, where other admins will review it. It is a judgment call, and another admin may well come to a different conclusion than I. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not going to appeal it. I will lose anyway. The law of admins basically states that unless there is an outrageously bad call then the ruling of the original admin stands. I tend to agree with that unwritten rule also. It parrots the civil proof of evidence rule in Texas which states that a appeal court cannot overrule a trial court on a matter of discretion unless that trial court judge committed an abuse of discretion. Appealing your block was never the point of my comments. The point of my comments is that admins should be open to feedback without getting defensive. So far, you have much more patient than the average admin. You have, so far, not found a technicality to use to block me. That is usually the defensive response that I get from my feedback. Also, my feedback, whether you agree or not, is useful if you can allow yourself to be honest with yourself. I pointed out that you slammed me with a pre-emptive 3RR, but you did not do such a thing with Gandydancer, who was clearly looking for a fight. So far, your only defensive push back has been is, and I give you credit for this, that you commented upon me personally (e.g., I quote you directly on this one, "passive-aggressive tone"). This comment is once again a judgement call and it is not a matter of fact. At any rate, it is an incorrect characterization of my comments. I understand why you might not like what I'm saying because very few regular editors are brave enough (or stupid enough, depending upon your point of view) to actually attempt to give an admin feedback that is honest and useful. And of course both of those adjectives do apply because my feedback is both honest and useful and your mischaracterization of my comments as "passive-aggressive" completely discounts my honesty and ignores the usefulness of what I have told you. Once again, that is the nature of admin/regular editor relationship. Admins just don't want to hear feedback especially from someone that they just blocked--in a borderline inappropriate manner. Wikipedia would be a better place if an editor could provide admins input without being called "passive-aggressive" but that is the nature of the game.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Know much about this, or interested in discussing Luciddreamworld (talk · contribs)'s concerns that the article needs warnings? Start of a discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I know much about the topic; it's not particularly interesting to me; and I don't really have the patience to deal with yet another True-Believer-On-A-Mission-To-Make-Sure-Wikipedia-Reflects-THE-TRUTH at the moment. Sort of a trifecta. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. A very smart choice on your part. I'll take it up the WP:DR chain if there's anything further from him, but I'm hoping that it's already over. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection New Party

Please explain your Protection of New Party article. This appears to have been done without any reason. The issue at hand is well sourced, and consencus is clear for its inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.94.115 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a clear consensus for the material to be included, then the semi-protection is irrelevant. Surely one of the other editors who form this consensus will reinsert it. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remove The Protection On Final Fantasy Type-0

A certain group of too enthusiastic fans have been littering the page with unreliable and moody sources regarding Western localization. The only solid facts there are to go on are the ones from the supplemental Ultimania material. Moreover, the "hints" that were provided by these questionable sources (read: some random bloggers on the internet) have all been directed towards this year's E3. That has come and gone, with no verifications or comments or anything regarding a Western release. The edits and reverts I have been making were not for the sole sake of just starting some petty edit war - I was merely cleaning up the mess they created. However, they keep reverting my edits and directing me to the talk page to discuss. When fallacious information and unverified sources are in question, there is no "talk" - and that is something which they do not seem to grasp. I ask that you remove the protection so that I may remove the false information, or at the very least, you remove them. I can direct you towards the unverified information as well as the verified one. Then, I ask you to protect the page so it may no longer be abused by them. Thank you. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MastCell. I don't want to start an argument on your talk page, so I won't respond to any of that, but if you do happen to want any more information on this situation, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Final_Fantasy_Type-0#PS_Vita_release or the IP's talk page. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning to remove the semi-protection; in fact, I'll probably revisit it with an eye to extending its duration or potentially upping it to full protection. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that would be most appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be fine as well to full protection - so long as the fallacious information is removed. Otherwise, it's nothing but misleading the readers without any context. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...As I said above. I'll comply, so long as the misinformation is removed. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AE appeal by TrevelyanL85A2

I've copied over an appeal to AE as the editor is blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Mathsci and Echigo Mole and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,