User talk:MastCell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

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)


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)


I just thanked Bishonen for her comment on the German WWII arb case, and realized that I never did the same for you. Thanks for speaking out - I entirely agree with you, and didn't say so because I thought the case result was a foregone conclusion. I'm glad you commented, and Bishonen as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. MastCell Talk 00:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Your comment on GorillaWare's page here. What comparison were you trying to make exactly? Because it seems like an apples and oranges situation. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to me. That's the point I was making. MastCell Talk 15:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, as long as I can use the Socratic method. You said: "I just cannot see how it is okay to disparage anyone based on their race, religion, gender, or sexuality." (I completely agree).
  • Can you think of any people more prominent than Sarah Jeong who have used their platforms to disparage people based on their races, religions, gender, or sexuality?
  • If so, then why did you choose her case, in particular, to take a principled stand against such disparagement?
More pointedly, the diffs I cited here suggest that you are consistently downplaying racially-charged statements by the most powerful person on Earth, at the same time that you're choosing to emphasize racially-charged statements by an obscure technical writer. That suggests, to me, that your concern about bigotry is not universal or consistent, but rather conditional. Or, to repeat my initial comment: if you survey the current political and social-media landscape for racism, and decide that Sarah Jeong's tweets are the item most deserving of your attention and scorn, then I think that says more about you than about her. MastCell Talk 16:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The difference is I did not play up the racism in either article. With Trump it came down to due weight for what was suggested and where, you will note I did mention where it would be more appropriate. In Jeong's article it holds more weight in her overall bio but even then I did not up the importance and even suggested showing the other side. But again, they are two vastly different BLPs and not comparable. Hence the apples and oranges. To do otherwise would be more akin to activism or righting great wrongs in my eyes, which is never appropriate here. But maybe I have it backwards? It is an interesting subject overall, I would like to know if you think I am way off base here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
In my view, it's pretty simple. The people who are up in arms over Sarah Jeong's racially-charged statements are, in many cases, the same people who have tied themselves into rhetorical knots trying to excuse, minimize, rationalize, or normalize a long series of racially-charged statements by the President. Now, the President has a much larger bully pulpit than Sarah Jeong, and he targets groups far more vulnerable than those targeted by Jeong.

Therefore, the disproportionate reaction to Jeong's tweets suggests that many of her critics are motivated not by any real concern about racism as a societal ill. Rather, they care about the subject only when they perceive their own "tribe" being targeted, or when accusations of racism can serve a useful political purpose. Jelani Cobb put it better than I could (his piece on the subject is worth reading in its entirety): the Jeong matter is dominated by partisans who "understand the current debate around free speech and social media not as an attempt to create parameters of decency around public dialogue but rather as part of a board game in which each side attempts to remove valuable pieces from the other's team."

I don't know you personally, nor do I know your beliefs, but your actions here—at least those which I highlighted—seem to conform to this pattern. Hence my comment. MastCell Talk 19:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Again it all goes to weight for that BLP, not much past that. It is a flawed comparison between the two people, and the importance the controversies have played in their lives as a whole. They simply are not equal in terms of their overall coverage. For example, there are hundreds of articles about Trump's perceived racism, but there are hundreds more on just his hair.Heck even on google (I know not an indicator of weight but still interesting) Trump racism is about 62 million, Trump hair is about 90 million, Trump hands is 127 million, and Trump by itself is 915 million. So the weight is not as strong, in the Jeong example that is not the case. But anyhow, thanks for explaining your opinion and hopefully you will better understand my actions. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's obvious that racism and hair styling stand on equal grounds as matters of biographical relevance. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: I have no idea why you would think that. Heck not even covered in the article. Focus here! Face-wink.svg PackMecEng (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Immediately above, you suggested that Trump's perceived racism is less noteworthy than his hair or the size of his hands, on the basis of Google hits. Boris is responding to something you just said. Please stop playing games. I'm happy to have a serious discussion, if you're willing to engage more forthrightly, but this feigned incomprehension is beneath you.

Boris's point is that regardless of Google hits, a President's habit of making racially-charged statements is inherently more relevant than his hair or hand size. Because you were the one who proposed that comparison, can you explain why you find it relevant to coverage of Trump's racially-charged statements? MastCell Talk 18:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As I stated it was a comparison of coverage in the media and how we assign weight. Of course I am not advocating that his main BLP to cover such silly things and it rightly does not. It does cover his racially-charged statements though and it should, it is obviously more important than his hands or hair. The issue I had was with the weight given and prominence in the lead. Which most people agreed with me on btw. Also it is absurd to compare the two people, which I have seen no argument on why someone would make such a comparison within Wiki policy. You said it yourself, "most powerful person on Earth, at the same time that you're choosing to emphasize racially-charged statements by an obscure technical writer" which is exactly what you seem to be doing. How do you give similar weight to something that is a vastly different situation? It more sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFF type situation, even though other than a racial component they are completely different. Perhaps you could offer an example of how my comments on the Trump pages related to Jeong's page or are inconsistent with what I have done? But to Boris's comment, I gave a sarcastic response to a sarcastic comment so take it easy with the tut-tut. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made the same point a number of times, and you're dancing around it and avoiding it, or perhaps I haven't been clear enough. I will try again. You went out of your way to express your moral disapproval of Jeong's tweets ([1], [2]), and argued that such racially-charged statements should be highlighted ("sunlight is the best disinfectant and light should be shown on both sides"). Admirable words, but your deeds don't match them—when it comes to Trump, you've found various rationales to avoid applying sunlight to his racially-charged statements.

That's the key inconsistency, and I was interested in hearing your rationalization for it. You argue that Jeong's tweets are more biographically significant than Trump's. I think the opposite is true: that it inherently more significant for an American President to habitually make racially-charged statements than for an obscure technical writer to do so. I question how you can make high-minded and moralistic pronouncements about the racist aspects of Jeong's tweets while ignoring—or, in fact, actively attempting to minimize—the racist aspects of Trump's tweets. That seems hypocritical to me. Your explanations so far have something to do with "weight" and with Trump's hair and hand size. But we're not talking about WP:WEIGHT, really; I'm questioning your decision to moralize publicly about Jeong while ignoring/enabling Trump. I haven't really heard a direct answer on that yet, not that you owe me one of course. MastCell Talk 19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

None of those diffs were me purposing they be added the article, that is why I am confused I suppose. That is the sticking point I had brought up above as well (though perhaps I could of explained it better) "The difference is I did not play up the racism in either article". Those were talks on a user page about the situation as a whole, not something I was trying to add the article. Perhaps it is the difference in my personal view verses my views as an editor, which I would assume are not always the same for you either. At least I would hope not, which goes back to what I said above "To do otherwise would be more akin to activism or righting great wrongs in my eyes". The more you describe it the more it looks like you are seeing the difference between editor me and personal feelings me. I personally have many issues with things Trump has done, especially given who I am as a person. But I do try to edit in a way that goes with policy over feeling. As far as the question of weight per subject, we might just have to agree to disagree. As the leader of the free world does it matter his racial views? Certainly, heck it has it's own article. Are they the even in the top 5 for most important things for his whole BLP to be added to the lead? I would say no, you obviously have a different opinion and that is fine there really are no right answers there. Does that help clear up the situation for you? PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
So then let's talk about "personal feelings" you rather than "editor" you—as long as you're willing. Why do Jeong's racially-charged comments bother you in a way that Trump's do not? (This isn't a trick question; I genuinely don't understand, and I would like to).

On a separate subject, I see you've followed me to the John K. Bush article—which you've never edited before—in order to revert my edit. Your assessment of consensus is incorrect, for reasons I'll detail on the article talk page, but I want to ask you here not to do this again. That is, don't look through my contribution history and then follow me to an article to revert or dispute my edits. I think it's inappropriate. MastCell Talk 18:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above it does bother me the things he says and does. "I personally have many issues with things Trump has done, especially given who I am as a person." So it is not a case of Trump's comments not bothering me. Even on the various talks pages I am sure you have seen my past edits stating my personal feelings to that effect as well. But I try and keep those personal feels separated from what I do on articles. Why do comments like that from one side bother you but comments from the other not? Personally it all bothers me. PackMecEng (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe you when you say that Trump's comments bother you. But my impressions are based on your actions. You went out of your way to publicly moralize on Wikipedia about Jeong's tweets. Have you ever gone out of your way to publicly moralize about Trump's comments? (Honest question; I don't follow your contribs, so I don't know). MastCell Talk 15:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Good question, I know I have several times on article talk pages put in a sentence or two with my other comments expressing my disapproval. But it is rare that I comment on anyone personally anywhere on Wikipedia. GW's talk page is not common for me, I poke fun with other users all the time but not BLP subjects much. I suppose being called a hypocrite and POV pusher would be a reason why I don't do it much. Feel satisfied to retract what you said? PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not clear what you'd like me to retract. I didn't call you a POV pusher, I don't think. (I did ask you to stop following me around to revert my edits, and I'll take your silence on that topic as agreement). I do think it's hypocritical to chastise an obscure progressive for racially-charged statements while ignoring similar (and worse) statements from a conservative President. You haven't really said anything to convince me otherwise. Your statement above is exceedingly vague. Insofar as you care about my opinion, I'd like to see a specific instance where you held the President to the same standards as you apparently hold for random opinion columnists. (Of course, you're free not to care about my opinion. I'll be alright). MastCell Talk 21:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────No you did not say POV pusher, that is correct. You said I was a hypocrite only defending one side, completely different I know... The hounding is BS and I have not responded, to the several times you have brought it up in several places, because we both know it's BS. I have explained the situation several times now in several different ways, while receiving no answers on the reverse. Which after going though your contribution history is starting to make sense, though I will say there is certainly consistency in the overall positions you take. So I will leave off this one with a quote that might help you 실수하여 고치지 않으면, 곧 그것을 실수하고 만다. 실수하여 고치는 것을 꺼리지 말라. - Confucius. But if you do still want to talk more about all this I am more than willing. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't read Korean, so I'm afraid that quote isn't going to help me. Now, about the hounding: you found the John K. Bush article by going through my contribution history (something you acknowledge doing above). You then followed me there and reverted my edits, based on your incorrect assertion of consensus. Are you honestly saying that you found that article some other way, and not by looking at my contribution history? If so, please, let's hear the alternate explanation. You say you've already "explained the situation several times now", but I don't see any explanation of your sudden appearance at that article shortly after you undertook a study of my contribution history. Enlighten me.

While we're on the subject, I am proud of the consistency of my contribution history. (Yes, I realize that you invoked "consistency" in backhanded way, and meant to imply political bias without actually having the courage to say so outright, but let's go with it). I've been here for more than a decade, and I've done a little of everything, both editorially and administratively. Think of it as a Rorschach test. I've found that when people focus on my contributions to political topics, it's usually because they themselves have trouble conceiving of Wikipedia as anything beyond a partisan battleground. Take a look at my most-edited articles sometime, and you'll see that political topics don't figure prominently in what I've done here.

You say you haven't received any answers from me. I've made an honest effort to engage with you here and answer your questions. If there's something you think I've failed to answer, please, ask again and I'll do my best. MastCell Talk 04:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is my final comment on the hounding claim because it is a red herring that has no value here (or anywhere for that matter). It is getting rather repetitive that you keep bring it up. Yes, I saw a bad edit in your history and corrected it. You had no consensus for what you did but for some reason tried to say otherwise. Then tried to say the version you wanted had been in there since the start when that was not the case, a quick look in the article history showed that and I showed that with diffs on the talk page. There is now consensus for that version thanks to me. As to the actual claim of hounding are you suggesting I did it in malice or as a form of harassment? That is an odd idea since again it was a very misleading edit that needed to be corrected and was on one article, though I do apologize if I caused irritation, annoyance or distress. Also the "explained the situation several times now" was in reference to my beliefs and the main discussion, which I will discuss below, unrelated to the spurious hounding claim.
Next with consistency it was not backhanded, I am not sure I could of been more blunt other than saying in all caps and bold "POV pusher here!" that was not the point, nor would I personally consider you a POV pusher. It was meant to give you something to reflect on along the lines of "those in glass houses should not throw stones". When looking at your contributions to talk and articles from the past year or so, yeah they are mostly topics that have a right or left swing and all favor one side or disparage the other. You can deflect however you want by saying people that focus on your topics are pov pushers themselves. But that does not actually change anything and is more of a whataboutism without addressing the substance. Though again it was meant to be insightful to you and help, but I have apparently missed the mark.
Finally back on track and to the important bits. The questions I had asked are mirrors of those you have asked me, like "Why do comments like that from one side bother you but comments from the other not?" which was skipped. I addressed that just prior to this, in that you see an issue in what I say and do but none in your own. I would like to understand that thought process and why you think that. Going back to the explained several times from above, again that was explaining my thoughts and positions on things several times through the discussion. I am not sure if you either do not believe me or do not understand me. I would get it if you just disagreed with me, but it does not look like it has gotten to that point. I would be fine with either not believing me or disagreeing with me since that is your choice to make on an internal level. But I am not sure if it is not still an understanding issue. I would actually be happy to go over any part again if you still have any questions, perhaps tackle it from a different angle for clarity.
Lastly this is kind of off topic to the rest of the discussion but do you speak any other languages? I have found I am always surprised on Wikipedia the vast differences in people from all over the world that contribute here. It's fascinating and very enlightening to hear about. First hand accounts always have more life to them than articles I find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PackMecEng (talkcontribs)
Let me see if I can clear up some things here, as it looks like you two are kind of talking past each other.
@PackMecEng, on the hounding thing, what you said above is such a distorted description of what actually happened it's almost unrecognizable. Almost every "point" you have tried to make about "consensus" is wrong. I'll put this in bullets to make it more clear:
  • 21:51, 6 August 2018‎ [3] An IP removed a sentence about confirmation hearings from the lede. Edit summary: "he was confirmed, so this clearly didn't have enough of an impact to warrant including in introduction." Although some details in that sentence had been added as recently as 1 month prior, there was an existing talk page consensus from 2017 to include the confirmation hearings in the lede.
  • 22:15, 7 August 2018 [4] MastCell reverted the IP. Edit summary: "plenty of precedent for including notably controversial confirmation hearings, even in confirmed judges; cf Clarence Thomas" You (PackMec) claimed above you had no consensus for what you did but for some reason tried to say otherwise. This is clearly false. You also claimed above, it was a very misleading edit that needed to be corrected. Also false. There was nothing misleading about the edit. (I think you may be conflating MC's revert of the IP with their revert of you, thinking incorrectly that MC claimed "consensus" in this first revert.)
  • 13:37, 15 August 2018 [5] PackMec reverts MastCell. Edit summary: "Undid revision 853936116 by MastCell (talk) consensus on talk is to exclude". This is clearly false, as a careful reading of the talk page shows that there is consensus to include material about the confirmation hearing, although there wasn't an explicit consensus on the specific wording and which details should be mentioned.
  • 18:39, 15 August 2018 [6] MastCell reverts. Edit summary: "consensus on the talkpage was clearly to mention his confirmation hearings in the lead (please read past the bolded words on the talk page); restoring per *actual* consensus, pending further talkpage discussion."
  • 01:48, 16 August 2018 ‎ [7] After a talkpage discussion a different editor who had participated in the original (2017) discussion tweaked the wording and added sources, implementing a new consensus version very similar to what MastCell had originally reverted to.
I think the point where you two started being on entirely different pages in what you were talking about was when PackMec (on the talk page) switched from it being about the confirmation hearing sentence to it being about the details in that sentence (eg. birtherism) which had indeed been added only 1 month prior. MastCell apparently didn't follow that switch in argument that happened only after the reverting was done. I also found it a bit amusing where PackMec pats themselves on the back, saying (There is now consensus for that version thanks to me.) was consensus before too. What you achieved was converting a tacit consensus about the wording into an explicit consensus.
One other observation is that PackMec's original (and mistaken) invocation of talk page consensus (in the "hounding" revert) looks more like an excuse to revert material they didn't like than an actual concern for enforcing consensus. It's pretty clear they skimmed the talk page and didn't read past the bolded votes.
In conclusion, I think that the outcome at the article was a small positive, as the article was slightly improved. I think that improvement could have happened in a better manner without all the the false claims and posturing. In any case I think it's time to put this to bed. Talking about it more isn't going to help anyone or do anything to improve the encyclopedia.
On the other topic, the one about Donald Trump's racist tweets versus Sarah Jeong's racist tweets: I think MastCell doesn't quite understand where PackMec is coming from, so let me address that. @MastCell, I imagine that PackMec, like many conservatives, is very bothered by Trump's tweets, as well as a lot of other things that Trump says. I imagine that they find racism repulsive. That said, I think they are willing to tolerate some things because they see Trump as doing other things that need to be done. (For many people this might include appointing conservative judges to the Supreme Court who can maybe stop what they see as the killing of unborn babies. Not saying that PackMec specifically endorses this, but that's an example that probably applies to many conservatives.) Jeung, on the other hand, probably isn't doing a lot of good in their view...just working for the (failing) NYTimes. I also imagine that PackMec doesn't hear some of the "dog whistles" in Trump's statements and is distrustful of the media reporting on such. I'd also like to push back on the argument that if PackMec really cares about racism they should be willing to call it out wherever they see it. I imagine that you (MC) value honesty, but I don't think that alone would convince you to try to paint Obama as a liar (even though he got the "lie of the year" award for his "you can keep your healthcare if you like it" thing). The point is, these things don't exist in a vacuum. There's also the sourcing argument...that most of the news about Jeong is related to her tweets.
So is it hypocritical for PackMec to support talking about racist tweets in Jeong's article and oppose talking about racist tweets in Trump's article? Well, maybe. But I think it's better understood as being a part of the tribalism that unfortunately too many of us engage in. It's a very hard trap not to fall into, and I don't know the best way to get out of it. Getting out, I think, requires the mental ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Using this as an example, you might try an experiment of trying to decide what you would do editorially if Clinton or Obama wrote racist tweets. Like actually sit down and think about it. Should there be a mention of racism in their respective Lede sections? You could also ask yourself what you would do if an obscure writer for Fox News was discovered as having written ugly racist tweets in the past. Should quotes from those tweets be substantially quoted in that person's biography? ~Awilley (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Awilley:There is a little more to it on the consensus side. The orginal version that was implimented as part of consensus was here from August 2017 and then on July 2018 MastCell changed the wording here to the wording today. So almost a year after consensus was reached the text was changed. It's a muddy situation.
Though for the most part I agree with a lot of your assessment there are a few comments I would like to make. I am not actually a conservative, didn't even vote for Trump. I ended up doing a write in for a co-worker because I couldn't stomach the lesser of two evils argument, I live in Illinois so no matter who I voted for it was going to Hillary. I just truly feel there is a weight issue at play. I could be completely off base and I admit that but that is what I see as neutral over all. On the whole though you are pretty close on most of it. I appreciate you taking the time to go though the weeds on this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Awilley: Thank you. I'm embarrassed to say that you explained my concern about the consensus/hounding issue much more clearly than I have, so thank you for taking the time. I don't have anything to add to that and agree it's best put to bed at this point.

As for the issue of racism, I want to distinguish clearly between my views as a Wikipedian and my views as a human being. Like most people, I have a set of political and sociocultural beliefs, but I've worked hard (and, I believe, successfully) to ensure that my actions here on Wikipedia reflect site policies, principles, and expectations regardless of my personal beliefs. I'm not really interested in touching the question of what Sarah Jeong's Wikipedia biography says. (Generally, I find these sorts of situations, where Wikipedia policies conflict with what I would consider basic human decency, to be depressing. We've made a lot of positive headway with WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, to the effect that Wikipedia should not be a vector for prolonging or intensifying the harassment of otherwise low-profile people, but in the end, arguments about "sources exist so it should be in the article" tend to win the day). I was interested in PackMecEng's threshold for making a moral statement singling out an individual for racism, as she did with Jeong. MastCell Talk 17:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


For the record, the original verbiage pertaining to "nose is long and straight" must be attributed to Jayen466 (talk · contribs) who introduced this verbiage during the Werner Mölders FAC review see diff1 and diff2. Since I am not a native speaker of the English language, I consequently assumed this verbiage to be FAC compliant and made the "mistake" to replicate this text to other articles. In addition, I also assumed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies to be applicable, in particuar as it pertains to the victory claim tables and dates of rank tables. I assumed this to be legitimate since the following FAC articles (Albert Ball, Roderic Dallas, Paterson Hughes, John F. Bolt and George Andrew Davis Jr.) also include claims tables. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that; I had tried to find where the original wording was added, but was unsuccessful given the lengthy page histories. While you're here, I guess I'd reiterate the wording of the MILHIST sourcing guidelines:
Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians.
I don't think that Nazi biographies fall under the "recent topics" umbrella, and WWII and the Nazi war effort have both been the subjects of extensive secondary analysis, so please keep this guidance in mind when choosing sources and subjects. MastCell Talk 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolute power of admins[edit]

From one admin to another, the repetitive jeremiads on this subject are surreal. I almost never enter the fray on such discussions, but it's good to see a bit of candor on what adminship really is. This place does crack me up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for the note. I usually avoid those sorts of discussions too—and I have a couple of reminders near the top of my userpage to keep me honest—but for whatever reason I couldn't resist in that instance. Have you ever noticed that the people who most vocally demand more accountability from admins often refuse to accept even the most minimal responsibility for their own behavior and actions? But then, unintentional irony is a Wikipedian specialty. MastCell Talk 04:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
For sure, there does seem to be a common thread. My personal favorites are when I ask for a name and diffs so I can seek out these heretofore anonymous abusive admins, without exception I only get excuses for not doing so. Sometimes it's impossible not to interject this whenever the latest round comes up somewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Have you ever noticed that the people who most vocally demand more accountability from admins often refuse to accept even the most minimal responsibility for their own behavior and actions? Yes. ~Awilley (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder if the accountability policy should be expanded to cover all edits, not just "admin actions". JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Lethality of firearms[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to the May discussion RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles at WP:RSN, in particular thank you for your comments on the quality of the arguments offered in opposition to expanded content from obviously reliable sources. One of the WP:MEDRS sources suggested in the RFC as supplemental to The New York Times:

  • Smith, Edward Reed; Shapiro, Geoff; Sarani, Babak (July 2016). "The profile of wounding in civilian public mass shooting fatalities". Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 81 (1): 86–92. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000001031. ISSN 2163-0755. PMID 26958801.

was recently summarized at Mass shootings in the United States as:

A retrospective study of 139 autopsy reports from 12 civilian public mass shootings in the United States published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery in 2016 found that gunshot wounds from high-velocity rifles have a lower rate of potentially survivable injuries as compared to other firearms. 371 gunshot wounds were found, included gunshot wounds from handguns, shotguns, and high velocity rifles. Potentially survivable injuries were about equally distributed between handguns and shotguns; no gunshot wounds from high-velocity rifles were found to be potentially survivable. Compared and contrasted with the results of earlier studies of injuries in military combat, military combat injuries include injuries from explosives, military personnel wear body armor and ballistic protection helmets and so have more injuries to extremities, while civilian public mass shooting events are closer range, have more injuries to the head and torso, and have a lower rate of potentially survivable injuries.

...and quickly reverted and is currently under discussion at Talk:Mass shootings in the United States#Recent edits. Some of the same editors who objected to the NYT as unreliable are now opposed to the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. As with most academic papers, the source includes a "Limitations of this study" section which is being cited in opposition. A letter written in comment (largely agreement) to the source is being cited in opposition. Opposition includes objecting to the retrospective nature of the study as inherently biased. Opposition arguments include WP:BLUE, that it is so obvious that high-powered rifles are more lethal than other firearms that Wikipedia need not say it.

Similar summarizations of this source were also attempted at Gunshot wound and were reverted. At the RFC you wrote:

If these sorts of arguments are relied upon to exclude content, or to attempt to disqualify obviously reliable sources, that may constitute tendentious and disruptive editing and may become an issue for administrative attention.

We could use your help. Could you take a look and perhaps weigh in? Thank you again. AviRich6 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ten years!

When I miss a user, I write an article. For Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I wrote "Im Frieden dein" (In Your Peace). It's on the Main page today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No truth[edit]

"I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace[8]

Bam! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • "How to cover a habitual liar"[1]
  • "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward."[2]
  • President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims[3]
  • Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'[4]
  • "...what's even more amazing than a President who is averaging -- repeat: averaging -- more than eight untruths a day is this: Trump's penchant for saying false things is exponentially increasing as his presidency wears on."[5]

  1. ^ Stelter, Brian; Bernstein, Carl; Sullivan, Margaret; Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "How to cover a habitual liar". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  2. ^ Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "Zurawik: Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  3. ^ Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador; Kelly, Meg (September 13, 2018). "President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  4. ^ Toles, Tom (September 13, 2018). "Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
  5. ^ Cillizza, Chris (September 13, 2018). "Donald Trump's absolutely mind-boggling assault on facts is actually picking up steam". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2018.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm old-fashioned enough—or naive enough—to believe that truth and honesty are universal, rather than partisan, values. That said, while individual dishonesty is one thing, the official acceptance and promulgation of obvious falsehoods is morally corrupting and toxic to society as a whole. (This corruption is a central theme in the dissident literature of any totalitarian society—for instance, that of the former Soviet Union). A broader discussion is outside the scope of Wikipedia, and I know better than to try to have a serious discussion on this website, with this "community". I will say that, insofar as Wikipedia is concerned, this project serves as a bulwark against official dishonesty, or at least it should. This project is dedicated to summarizing human knowledge, and to combating ignorance and misinformation—meaning that we, as Wikipedians, have a responsibility to resist falsehoods and lies, whatever their source. And that's my inspirational speech for the day; now back to the comfort of my usual cynicism. MastCell Talk 20:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 style rifle[edit]

I'll post this here instead of extending the NPOV thread. Several editors have been supporting a certain passage, "Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific characteristics but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect."(USA Today) (ABC News) while opposing sources that present other viewpoints or discuss characteristics of the gun that make it attractive to mass shooters, such as The Atlantic which quotes the original designer of the weapon. These sources are dismissed as "non-expert", "media commentary", "speculation by journalists", etc. even though they are published as news items and not opinion pieces.

I would recommend reading the entire talk page for background, particularly the opinions on why mass shooters choose the AR-15 section. Here are a few relevant diffs: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

On a related note, I recently opened an ANI thread regarding 72bikers' behavior in this topic area. It would help to have an uninvolved admin keep an eye on the article since it's really a long pattern of stonewalling and refusal to compromise on the part of several editors which can't easily be narrowed down to a particular incident. I've written an essay on the big-picture situation which has largely been resolved. –dlthewave 04:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I will review those links and discussions. I'm not super active these days—too much else going on in my life, and in the world—so I can't promise a rapid resolution, but I will look into it. MastCell Talk 03:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your NPOVN AR-15 comment[edit]

I think your comment was probably the best thing you could have added to that discussion. There were lots of issues that editors felt compelled to discuss, but the discussion was going in more of a "forum" route than a "find a consensus" route. That's why I stopped commenting.

So thank you. I'm always happy to see drama put to rest, and I think that's what you did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. MastCell Talk 03:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

M&P15 discussion[edit]

Could you look over this discussion, these notifications and this comment? The discussion concerns the addition of criminal use information to Smith & Wesson M&P15 and several editors are essentially stonewalling the process by referring to prior discussions which are no longer relevant and making accusations of canvassing and forum shopping. Input from an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. Thanks –dlthewave 17:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave:, that is a VERY self serving summary of the issue. The proposed material is virtually identical to the material debated in RfC from last year. That RfC had about two dozen participants, many were not the usual editors, and resulted in no consensus for addition. You are attempting to relitigate the same material while ignoring previous consensus. You are also engaging in vote stacking by notifying the "Gun Politics" project. That was a project you started to correct what you felt was insufficient coverage of this sort of content in gun articles. All 10 members are editors who have reliably supported such content. So yes, I am asking why you think we should relitigate this content and why you think your notifications were not vote stacking. Springee (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: I apologize for the late response; I'm not super-active here these days. I've reviewed the material in question, as well as some of the referenced RfC's and other discussions. It seems entirely appropriate to have an RfC on the topic of whether the Smith & Wesson M&P15 page should include mention of that weapon's use in mass shootings. The current consensus is to handle such material on a case-by-case basis, which is what it appears you're doing by opening an RfC. The "forum-shopping" objections seem groundless at best, and intentionally obstructionist at worst.

Nor do I see any problem with the Gun Politics Task Force; it is properly constituted and open to anyone interested in gun politics, regardless of their underlying views. Springee can, of course, open an MfD discussion about the task force if s/he is so motivated, but the complaints about votestacking are likewise inappropriate and unfounded. I hope you're able to get a decent amount of thoughtful outside input at the RfC. If there are ongoing issues with obstructionism, please let me know. MastCell Talk 21:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, why isn't this a case of revisiting a previous RfC in hopes of getting a different result? I have been under the impression that editors should have some just cause for reopening a previously closed RfC. Absent that reason why wouldn't this be forum-shopping? Springee (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The previous RfC took place in 2017—at a time when the Firearms WikiProject had promulgated guidelines forbidding mention of mass shootings in articles describing the weapons used in those mass shootings. Those WikiProject guidelines have since been rejected by the community. Since the underlying assumptions from the 2017 RfC are no longer valid, it seems reasonable to revisit the question now. In other words, there is "some just cause" to re-open the question, and it looks like other editors have repeatedly explained that cause to you. MastCell Talk 21:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The change in the project guidelines was small, the existing recommendation now clarifies that WP:WEIGHT applies. Since the guideline helped interpret weight what we have was a non-change. Additionally, that argument would have more substance if it was shown the change in project guidelines was a deciding factor in the previous closing. Asking the editors in question could clarify if that was a deciding factor. Not many editors cited that reason alone. Keep in mind that Dlthewave didn't start a new formal RFC including notifying the previous editors. Instead they set up a quick vote despite the objections of other editors. So even if the RFC should be reopened, they didn't notify responding editors that the material had been previously discussed nor why the previous RFC should be overlooked. Finally, I can't fathom how it isn't vote stacking to notifying a project that it's specifically setup to push this sort of information. Project firearms includes a broad range of editors including those who have supported such article changes in the past. The same can not be said of protect guns politics. Springee (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. When the dictates of the Firearms WikiProject were overturned by the community, the baseline assumptions for these discussion shifted. I don't know what the outcome of the current RfC will be, but I do know that it's fair to revisit the question given the changing context, and that the RfC itself is not abusive or inappropriate. Please stop insisting otherwise.

As for notifying participants of the previous RfC, that is certainly fine but it is not a requirement, to my knowledge. You're free to do so if you feel so moved; if you do, please notify all (non-blocked) editors who commented in the prior discussion. But please stop asserting that the lack of notification constitutes misconduct on Dlthewave's part, because it doesn't.

Finally, regarding the Gun Politics task force, I don't share your concerns. Like other such task forces, it is open to any who wish to join, regardless of their personal views on gun politics. Of course, any WikiProject can end up serving as a platform for partisan vote-stacking or inappropriately coordinated editing. For example, the Firearms WikiProject developed a bizarre dictum insisting that criminal use of firearms could only be included as a "see also" in gun articles—an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT—which the broader community rejected. And, as I'm sure you're aware, reputable outside media have raised the concern that the Firearms WikiProject is inherently political in its approach to the topic area. I haven't yet seen similar concerning issues with the Gun Politics Task Force. In any case, if you believe the Task Force to be invalid, then the appropriate venue is WP:MfD. Until and unless the task force is deleted by community consensus, please don't keep implying that it's somehow less valid that others. MastCell Talk 20:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mastcell. I would add that participation in a Wikiproject is not restricted to those who are listed as "members" or "participants". For example, I assume that Springee and other editors have either watchlisted the Gun Politics task force or are monitoring my edits, as they often respond to my posts on the project talk page, just as I have followed Firearms and other projects before adding my name to the list. I request that Springee either cease making these accusations regarding the task force (which only seem to come up when there is an RfC or other discussion to undermine) or bring it up at the appropriate noticeboard.–dlthewave 21:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, MastCell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It's time for elastic waistbands....[edit]

Whad'ya call a turkey on the run?
Fast food.

Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
Thanksgiving chuckles...

What smells best at a Thanksgiving dinner?
Your nose.
What did the turkey say to the computer?
Google, google, google.

😊🦃 Atsme✍🏻📧 22:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow!! Another year gone.[edit]

Hummingbird Christmas 2018.jpg Santa Claus is coming to town!
Hoping all of your wishes come true, but I'm thinking you'll settle for the first 5, right? 😊 Stay warm...enjoy the holiday season...make happy memories!! Atsme✍🏻📧 23:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Snow Covered Trees Starry Night (166032201).jpeg Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!


Could you please try to keep your talk page comments a bit less personal? [17] [18] You may be right, but venting assumptions of bad faith like that on the talk page is not helpful to the discussion and a bit off-putting. ~Awilley (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, I appreciate your presence at Talk:Donald Trump, which is clearly an underserved area in terms of administrative guidance. That said, I disagree with your decision to scold me about my tone, rather than to address the repetition of obviously false claims (at this point, I think it's fair to call them lies) on the highest-profile article and talkpage on this site.

Specifically, the Donald Trump article currently states, in its lead, that the crimes committed by Trump's associates were "unrelated to Russia". That is false. (At a minimum, Cohen's and Flynn's guilty pleas are directly and undeniably related to Russia). We're not talking about a difference of opinions, nor context dependency. The wording in the lead is categorical, and categorically false. So we have a situation where editors have inserted and defended wording that they know, or should know, is false, in the lead of a high-profile biographical article. Worse, we have a talk-page environment where obviously false wording receives at least a significant minority of support on an RfC. That's evidence of a deeply dysfunctional editing environment, one that has drifted very far afield from this site's policies. Given those ground truths, my tone is significantly milder than perhaps is appropriate.

As for PackMecEng, look. An editor presented a reliable source describing Trump's plea for the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's email. (The source is entitled, in part, "Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton"). PackMecEng responded: "I do not think any reasonable person takes that comment as actually asking Russia to hack Hillary." So you have a reliable source saying X, and an editor responding by saying that no reasonable person believes X. That is bizarre. What is the good-faith explanation for a flat refusal to accept or acknowledge the content of reliable sources? Should I nod and smile when someone looks me in the eye and tells me that 2 + 2 is 5?

I'm a believer in civility, and I wouldn't have lasted more than a decade here, on the kinds of articles I edit, if I weren't relentlessly and sometimes teeth-gratingly civil. But any adult definition of civility has, at its core, honesty. There is no act more uncivil than lying, or feigning incomprehension, or pretending that something is true in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Being polite to someone while s/he lies to your face or gaslights you is not civility. So if this is about tone and civility, then I'm going to suggest you start there.

I'm going to close with a question to you: does it bother you that the lead of the most prominent article in the encyclopedia now contains a false claim—one that you've now locked in place by protecting the article—and that numerous editors continue to defend this false claim on the talkpage? It bothers me, and I'm open to your suggestions on how to address it. MastCell Talk 15:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here for some reason I will give a short response to the above. I stand by what I said about reasonable people thinking Trump honestly asked Russia to hack Hillary. It was clearly a joke and the people that took it as anything but that seem to be pushing a political POV. I am also disturbed that you keep misrepresenting what the lead actually says. You keep saying "unrelated to Russia" but that sentence and the sentence before that make very clear that it is unrelated to Russian efforts to interfere in the election. There is a clear distinctions there and one that has been brought up by several people on that talk page with several RS supporting it. It is a little ironic that you call people lairs, incompetent, and childish for disagree with a source then you turn right around and do the same thing. Perhaps political articles are not your thing and you should take a break from them. But eh it is a free world and that is just some friendly advice. Marry Christmas!Face-wink.svg PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @PackMecEng: I pinged you because I don't want to be accused of talking about you behind your back. I understand that you think Trump was joking when he asked the Russians to hack Clinton's email and help him win the Presidency. (The Russians then did hack Clinton's email and help Trump win the Presidency, so it would appear they didn't take it as a joke, but I digress). I don't object to your sense of humor. I object to your total disregard for the content of reliable sources. I object to the fact that, confronted with a reliable source saying X, you respond that no reasonable person could possibly think X. I think I made that clear above.

As for the "unrelated to Russia's efforts" wording, no amount of legalistic nonsense makes that wording any less false. Reliable sources unequivocally tie Cohen's guilty plea to Russia efforts to influence Trump and the election: [19], "(Cohen's plea shows) that Trump was engaged in business dealings with Russia in the midst of a campaign in which Moscow interfered to help elect him.", etc. Likewise, Flynn held secret backchannel communications with the Russian ambassador to help Russia avoid consequences for its interference in the election, and pleaded guilty to lying about those conversations.

Now, our article says that the guilty pleas were "unrelated to Russia's efforts". But obviously, both Cohen's and Flynn's pleas were directly related to Russia's efforts. It might be narrowly and legalistically correct to say that their pleas do not speak to collusion with Russia to influence the election, but that's not what our article says. Our article contains a categorical denial that their pleas had anything to do with "Russia's efforts", which is false. Since Flynn tried to help Russia avoid consequences for their interference, his plea is obviously "related to Russia's efforts". MastCell Talk 17:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem with removing it is the same issue you have with leaving it. The current wording is technically correct, though I see your point it could be misleading if you take the sentence by itself. The issue with just removing that part is that the sentence at that point would also not be correct. What kind of clarification for the sentence would you suggest to remedy that? PackMecEng (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken PackMecEng. The sentence without the words "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is technically correct AFAICT. (That several of Trump's associates have pled guilty to various crimes is uncontroversial). The problem I think people were having was with the implications of having that so close to Russian meddling. ~Awilley (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Could be, but if the sentence says "to investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding election interference, and any matters arising from the probe. The ongoing investigation has so far led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates" I think it is to strong of a implication without clarification. Similar to what MastCell was saying, while not technically incorrect there is a high possibility that it would mislead our readers. I get the feeling our readers would either skip over or not understand the ,and any matters arising from the probe which would then make it an incorrect statement. PackMecEng (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: ok, so you understand the problem. Now what can you do to fix it half way that doesn't involve adding the words "unrelated to Russia's efforts"? Looking on the talk page I see that User:Objective3000 has proposed an alternate wording here that adds the word "various" before "criminal charges". Does that sufficiently soften the implication for you that the charges are Russia-collusion-related? ~Awilley (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
That has the same issue and does not clarify any of it. I would personally like to kill the whole sentence as has been suggested by others and kick the can down the road to the presidency article. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
If you're worried that readers will draw incorrect inferences about the specific crimes committed, why not just name them—financial fraud, lying to the FBI, conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to obstruct justice, etc.? I don't understand the need for lawyerly language about what they didn't do; just say what they did do. MastCell Talk 02:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
That would certainly be more appropriate for a BLP to be clear on what they did and try to avoid implying anything else. One needs to be careful when talking about a BLPs crimes. PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @MastCell: Yes, it bothers me. Although to be fair the text doesn't actually say "unrelated to Russia" as you quoted above. It says "unrelated to Russia's efforts" and I think in the context of the whole sentence the intended meaning is "unrelated to Russia's efforts [to influence the 2016 election]", which I believe is true so far as we know. (At least people have produced sources saying things along those lines.) So I think what bugs me about the wording is not that it is categorically true or false, but that it can be interpreted as being true or false by otherwise fairly reasonable people.
I have a lot of respect for you. I remember sometime back a long conversation between you and PackMecEng where you were trying really hard to understand her perspective. I think that same type of open-mindedness is going to be what resolves this issue...when someone takes the time to understand the root of others' concerns, and comes up with some wording that reasonably addresses that. ~Awilley (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
PMFJI, but as a Brit looking on (who is daily thankful he does not edit on US politics) I have to say that having phrasing like "unrelated to Russia" in the lede seems just really odd. Surely this is an opinion, and quite a layered/contested one at that. How can it belong? Merry Christmas to you all! Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Awilley, Flynn admitted lying about his efforts to help Russia avoid sanctions for its election interference. So how can his plea possibly be "unrelated to Russia's efforts [to influence the 2016 election]"? His plea revolves entirely around Russia's election interference. Without Russia's efforts to influence the election, there would have been nothing to lie about, and no crime. And yes, I tried hard to understand PackMecEng's perspective, because I try to be open-minded. It's partly on the basis of those prior efforts on my part that I am less willing to extend leeway to her now. I am all for compromise wording, but you can't compromise effectively with people who flatly deny the content of reliable sources or insist of categorical and false language. MastCell Talk 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I suppose one could also argue that all the guilty pleas are related to Russia trying to influence the election. (If Russia hadn't interfered there probably wouldn't have been a probe in the first place.) Looking more closely at the sources some people are providing [20] it looks like the issue might be whether the charges were related to collusion with Russia to influence the election. That might be helpful in finding a compromise. Anyway I'll stop bothering you here. ~Awilley (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
You're not bothering me; I appreciate your engagement and interest. MastCell Talk 02:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings[edit]

Christmas pavlova.jpg Austral season's greetings
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Fox News[edit]

I appreciate that there are examples of sub-standard reporting in Fox News. My question is what is the difference between Fox news coverage of the Seth Rich murder and the New York Times (and other U.S. media) coverage of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. In both cases media presented information they should have known was false in order to further political ends. And I don't think these are isolated incidents, just the most egregious. TFD (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Fox News, I'm not sure that "sub-standard reporting" is a remotely proper description, so the comparison is useless.
Thanks, MastCell, for continuing to bring up these issues. Consensus doesn't do us much good if the facts aren't well known, or are being overlooked. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Korean Proletarian Artists' Federation[edit]

Can you please restore Korean Proletarian Artists' Federation that was deleted (PROD) because of "No decent google hits. Possible hoax, or un-notable thing. Maybe just because this was invented and dissolved way before the www was invented..."

The topic is notable, certainly not a hoax, and there is plenty of coverage in books (physical and Google books) and journal articles. There's lots of new English-language scholarship since the article was deleted in 2007. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: The old, deleted article was only 5 sentences long, contained little beyond a basic description, and cited zero sources. I can undelete it if you like, but there is really no sourced info there (and hardly any unsourced info either). If new sources exist then you might be best off just writing a new, properly sourced article from scratch. MastCell Talk 02:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for the information. Based on the description you provided, I'll probably just start it from scratch (with sources). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from a court opinion.[edit]

Please see my questions on the Center for Medical Progress talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talkcontribs) 22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Also see my question on the talk page: For the People Act of 2019. Swood100 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I will respond on those talkpages. I've added them to my watchlist, so there's no need to ping me here. While we're talking, though, did you see my note on your talkpage, asking you to stop following me around and reverting my edits? MastCell Talk 01:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I did but that was a one-time event. It's not as if it has turned into a pattern, but rest assured that I will not be hounding you, if for no other reason than I don't think I want to aggravate you any more than is necessary given your apparent proclivity for viewing my edits in the worst possible light.
While I am here, I asked on Talk:Center_for_Medical_Progress#findlaw.com_as_a_legitimate_secondary_source whether anybody has an objection to as a legitimate secondary source. If you do could you go to that page and supply your reasons?
Also on that page I responded to your assertion that a court transcript is always a primary source with a reference to the effect that those portions of a court opinion that are orbiter dicta are a secondary source, as are concurrences and dissents. Did you have a response to this? Thanks. Swood100 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your partisanship at AE[edit]

I've been following WP:AE for quite some time, and have noticed that you seem to pop out of nowhere when there is an enforcement report that is tangential to politics. Recently you have not participated at AE for a long time, until now when there is a request related to gun politics (which is a very controversial issue in American politics).

So, I opened your contribs at 1000 edits and CTRL+F'd "enforcement". These are your last AE participations (political descriptions broadly speaking):

  • 18 February 2019 proposing sanctions for right-leaning editors (gun politics)
  • 28 June 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)
  • 24 May 2018 defending a progressive editor (American politics 32-)
  • 17 May 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (gun politics)
  • April 4 2018 defending a progressive editor (American politics 32-)
  • 4 April 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor ("Race and Intelligence")
  • 11 March 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (gun politics)
  • 4 January 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)
  • 9 November 2017 defending progressive editor and proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)

Really, there is no pattern here? Can you say hand on your heart that your participation at AE is not politically biased? Frankly, this reminds of Gamaliel's enforcement of Gamergate requests which led to this motion

PS. In your latest AE comment[21] you accused three editors of "deep-seated partisanship" so hope you don't mind the word being used to describe your own behauvior. --Pudeo (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

An observation on this comment, hope that is okay with the user. There is an odd logic, and curiously US view of right and left politics embracing crazed populists lying left, right, and centre. According to the postscript, indicating hyper-partisan behaviour is itself partisan, therefore Pudeo's behaviour is partisan? Or can I just accuse them of that, see if something sticks? … it's confusing and paradoxical, this nice method of hounding those users working on stopping 'deep-seated partisanship'. cygnis insignis 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I can't say I'm some kind of a neutral observer not involved in partisan issues in Wikipedia. However, the difference between me and MastCell is that I'm commenting as a regular user giving my two cents, and he's commenting as an uninvolved admin directly leading to users being banned and blocked as a result of these reports. Arbitration enforcement is not to be taken lightly, it requires professionalism. --Pudeo (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Somebody made the point once that most of us are not familiar with the process of consensus and arbitration, and we try to equate it other forms of resolution, judicial, political, and the forms of democracy and control. This user's tools are somewhat incidental, although it is usual for those entrusted with other tasks to also be admins, and so are their own views if all is well with the community. The actions are not this users own, per se, they are an integral part of the 'community', a bizarre and alien creature that would not even be able to exist but for the consensus that it does. I'm a regular user, like you, and probably too protective of the community and its ways; I don't know much about either of you and hope what I had to say was helpful, in some way. Regards to you both. cygnis insignis 12:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Really, there is no pattern here? Patterns can't be discerned without context. Are these all the AE cases MastCell participated in the last year and a half? What were the cases he didn't participate in like? And did MastCell agree with the majority in these cases, or disagree? If rightwingers are more likely to be wrong, and lefties more likely to be right, then you'd expect this pattern. If it's the other way around, then it's unusual.
Without context, things like this are impossible to interpret. You admit you aren't a neutral observer - you need to make sure you don't come across as someone casting aspersions or trying to pressure admins at AE you see as unfavourable to your side. Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pudeo, first of all, I don't necessarily accept your facile dichotomization of editors as either "right-leaning" or "progressive". I have no idea if Captain Occam, for instance, is "right-leaning" or "progressive". I do know he's repeatedly abused this site to push racist pseudoscience, but I'd hesitate to label someone "right-leaning" on that basis. More generally, I think that the tendency to reflexively pigeonhole editors by their perceived political leanings is evidence of a partisan political-battleground mentality, which is best avoided.

    But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I accept the labels you've applied to these editors. Your complaint, then, is that I've advocated sanctions for "right-leaning" editors disproportionately to "progressive" editors. Have you made any effort to assess the merits of any of the cases in question, or are you just reflexively defending your "team"? By way of analogy, suppose that, in the course of a football game, the Packers are flagged for 150 yards of penalties while the Bears are penalized for only 15 yards. Does that mean that the referees are biased against the Packers? Or does it mean that the Packers committed more penalties than the Bears, while the referees did their level best to call the game fairly? I don't see any evidence that you've tried to disentangle these two potential explanations. Do you think that some or all of those cases were wrongly decided? If so, it's not clear from your complaint, which seems based on your assumptions that a) editors fall neatly onto one of two "teams", and b) editors from each "team" should be sanctioned in roughly equal numbers by an unbiased admin.

    As for where I choose to involve myself, I've been active for more than a decade here, and I've done a little of everything. I've written featured articles, drafted content guidelines, handled vandalism, new page patrol, and protection requests, and participated in every level of dispute resolution. I don't feel the need to justify or make apologies for where I choose to spend my time on this site anymore.

    One more thing, regarding professionalism. In the threads in question, I voiced my opinion. Sometimes other admins find my opinion convincing and agree with me; sometimes I'm an outlier. That's part of the job. I rely on my administrative colleagues as a sanity check, and as a safety against any conscious or unconscious bias on my part. If your complaint is that other admins find my arguments convincing more often than not, well, I guess I hope I'm guilty. MastCell Talk 01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Yes, it's not nice to pigeonhole people into these labels, but it had to be broadly done to make the point. And let's not pretend that the DS area American politics 32- isn't about progressives vs. conservatives. I don't think the cases were wrongly decided or that you made completely unreasonable points. It's just that if there's a call to make, you will always fall on the same side which I think makes deep bias in the long run. There is some complaining about Sandstein being biased in Israeli-Palestine reports, but he's not always making the same call, and he's active in AE reports in other areas as well. The reason why I care about this is because AE is frequented by only a handful of admins, so if one or two admins pop up selectively, they will sway the consensus. Happy trails --Pudeo (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)