User talk:MastCell/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MastCell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

BTW

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

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

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

Consensus Batesmethod article ?

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

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

Attempt for Consensus on Reardon Article

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

The Facts are as follows:

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

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

New Paragraph:

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

Old Paragraph

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

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

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

Protection of Bates method article

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

It's not a single anonymous edit, as I'm sure you're aware. The article has been hit by dozens of Tor proxies in the past few weeks. It's a controversial article and one afflicted by conflicts of interest and charges of sockpuppetry. The edits from the open proxies are highly unlikely to be those of new users, and much more likely to be those of an editor attempting to avoid scrutiny. In any case, on a controversial article where there are issues of COI and alleged sockpuppetry, anonymous open proxies are not particularly welcome to join the fray, for the reasons set out in the open proxies policy on English Wikipedia and meta. If a new user simply must edit the Bates Method article right off the bat, then they can register and get acclimated for 4 days before jumping in. It probably takes at least that long to familiarize oneself with the lengthy dispute, assuming of course that one is in fact new to it. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

SSDD

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (5th). Pretty clear cut, but since I've noticed your blocks on one or more of the sock/sockpuppets, I thought you should know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Place jumping

I just beat you to it here. That was really silly. Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI Suggestion on Waterboarding

I've made a suggestion on ANI about a possible way forward. Check it out and let me know what you think Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Last_time_I.27m_doing_this:_Talk:Waterboarding_.28again.29 SirFozzie (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to get involved. I commented there. I've long since developed the sense that our existing approach to dealing with these kind of free-for-alls is woefully inadequate, so I'm open to any suggestions about new ways of doing things. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion was initially used in The Troubles ArbCom case and has seemed to at least reduce the amount of "The usual folks editing in the usual way". The only thing I can think of that would be a problem.. do we as admins have the right to do that ourselves (Ie, set the terms of monitoring the article), or do we need an ArbCom finding to do so. If we need ArbCom, we might as well go ahead and ask ArbCom to take a look at it now, and save time. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles SirFozzie (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raphaelaarchon sock back

Another handful of edits from User:71.100.9.83 at Talk:Glenn Greenwald‎ accusing me and others of a great conspiracy to hide the truth, or something. You blocked this IP last week for the same. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for another week, and will escalate it further if it continues to be a problem after that week expires (assuming the IP appears reasonably static). MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I resemble that remark! If you mark that frame an 8, you're entering a world of hurt. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was probably overkill. And it wasn't that lame of a joke, so I probably wasn't being fair. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And in an example of instant karma, I just accidentally blocked myself while intending to block an IP sock. Consider it a 1-minute self-imposed block for rudeness. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mangled 3RR Block Request

Thanks for responding to my request despite its technical deficiencies. I see what I did wrong and will do better if there's a next time. PhGustaf (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's actually quite challenging to put together a seamless 3RR report, so don't feel bad. When the violation is that clear-cut, the technical details are less vital anyway. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gon4z

has a new IP: 82.45.201.125. I reported him, admin User:Riana blocked him for 3 days, if he returns, please help keep an eye on him. --noclador (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Hi, I am in need of assistance on Fibromyalgia. User:Djma12 is pushing a text that is at odds with the sources provided. I have reported User:Djma12 for WP:3RR but can't do anything more without violating 3RR myself, since User:Orangemarlin has, as always, jumped in to oppose me. I would ask David Ruben, who has edited the article, but he is on wiki-break. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While the issue on Fibromyalgia seems to be at least halfway solved, User:Orangemarlin unfortunately continues on the warpath with disruptive editing behaviour on Chronic fatigue syndrome and spreading lies about me on his talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't lie. Personal attacks will get you blocked again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Mastcell

To quote Emily Dickinson

"Truth is Manifold"

As such wikipedia as an expression of truth is an oxymoron

Just wondering what you think?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.80.72 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote Henry David Thoreau, "Please leave me alone." MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Censorship"

I responded on my talk page. Neitherday (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about "inaccurate summary" warning

MastCell, you left a note on my talk page suggesting that the summary of my change to Passive Smoking was "inaccurate or inappropriate." I'm afraid that I don't understand what was wrong with it and neither you, nor the person who undid my change John Quiggin left me a clue about what the problem was.

My edit (#183911362, 14:37, 12 Jan, 2008) was factual, provided a citation, and added information about dissenting scientific opinion to what otherwise appears to be a rather biased article.

Can you explain (a) What would have made a better edit comment and (b) whether you agree with the undo-ing of my addition and, if so, (c) where I can challenge this? (I understand that undo/redo-wars are bad-wiki-form.)

Thanks! Oliepedia (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary in question said: "Added reference to British Medical Journal study." The edit itself described the essentially unanimous scientific consensus on secondhand smoke as merely "popular among the anti-tobacco movement" but "by no means universally accepted". That's a bit more than simply adding a reference. I do agree with the undoing of the edit; I'd encourage you to take a look through the article talk page (if you haven't already), as the issue of how to present the "dissenting" view has been discussed ad nauseum. For example, Enstrom/Kabat's study is already mentioned, in a more complete context, earlier in the article. The relevant portion of the NPOV policy is WP:WEIGHT. The best approach is probably to bring up your proposed edit on the article talk page and discuss it. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the clear answer. Oliepedia (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

May need your help with AFD

So, hope you have some time to delegate your Jurisprudence. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean technical help with nominating an article for AfD, just let me know and I'd be happy to help. If you're asking for my !vote on a specific AfD, then please be careful to mind WP:CANVASS. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would never ask for a vote, and I do not believe in votes. I like how level headed and neutral you are. But it seems okay now the discussion is getting past the vote phase and more into a solution phase. You are welcome to comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection of Animal Face-Off

Hi there. You semi-protected this article back in July to prevent an edit war. As it has now been protected for approximately six months, do you agree that it is probably safe to unprotect it again? Thanks in advance. Terraxos (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, absolutely. I've gone ahead and unprotected it. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:88.234.95.232

Our link deleter is back, with IP address User talk:88.234.95.232 this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll probably semi-protect a couple of the target articles briefly. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote admin User:Y

Thank you for closing the discussion. Don't think for a moment that I enjoy fighting on the WP:AN. I feel that User:Y does not behave as an admin should behave, and he never apologized to User:Be best and User:W guice, and he was never warned for his behaviour (see User talk:Arbeit Sockenpuppe and User talk:Y, nothing there). If I attack you personally right now, you will warn me not to do it again, right? So what's the difference between me and User:Y? Anyway, if you don't want to discuss this any further or don't know the answer to my question, you don't have to answer at all. --Koreanjason (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was being flippant, which is a risk in online media because sarcasm and humor often don't come across. At the same time, people generally aren't severely disciplined for a single (or a few) off-hand sarcastic remarks, and I don't think anyone reading the exchange would take away anything negative about you. If you made similar remarks, I don't think I'd suggest blocking or otherwise discplining you. I think sometimes the best thing to do is just move on - it's too easy for minor disputes to become self-sustaining, and it ends up exhausting everyone. If User:Y gives you a hard time in the future, then that would be one thing, but for now why not just let it go? It's hard to see this sometimes, but dropping a dispute like this is sometimes the action that reflects best on you. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Genny Cream

They definitely still make that nasty swill. A friend of mine insists he loves it. Gnixon (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, turns out there is actually a Wikipedia article: Genesee Cream Ale - I must have been misspelling it when I originally searched. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done

Your email was scary. Then I saw this on a supposedly non-controversial article, without a single piece of discussion. Then I saw this attack commentary on another non-controversial article. Then I notice Gnixon here posting away. I can put up with POV-warriors, nutjobs, and other difficult types, but when nice articles like these two get destroyed by people with an agenda, attacks and whatever else floats their boat, it's no fun. I think I'll have more fun having my toenails extracted without anesthesia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, the case I referred to in my email was not typical, but was the worst I've seen in my time on Wikipedia. Still, it's had a cautionary effect. Unless the scary part was that I used to drink Genesee Cream Ale; in which case be assured that I've moved on. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The scary part is the case. Beer drinking is acceptable. A case of beer is questionable. I'm just frustrated by this place. Creationist stuff is bad enough, since we're building a generation of science-stupid children, there's no need to compound the issue. But these articles about medicine and snake-oil medicine frustrates me. And of course, the articles that keep me away from the frustrating articles are now being damaged by people with agendas. Maybe this project just isn't going to work out. Maybe the idea of a Democratic Encyclopedia just can't happen whenever individuals with their own agendas push hard to get what they want. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, if a person believes that endlessly diluting a noxious substance renders it curative of a pathologically unrelated process, then nothing Wikipedia has to say on the subject is going to persuade them otherwise. Similarly, when confronted with a seemingly magical or inexplicable phenomenon, some people will jump on a supernatural explanation while others will search for the man behind the curtain. Wikipedia can't change those responses; it just gives people a place to fight about them.

I'm mostly concerned about specific cases where the imprimatur of science is being misapplied to things which are not scientific, generally by single-purpose agenda-driven accounts with a likely or explicit conflict of interest. If people oppose abortion on moral or whatever other grounds, then I'm fine with that. However, if they oppose abortion because they read a misleading article on Wikipedia claiming that there's medical evidence of a "post-abortion syndrome", then that's a problem. Same goes for secondhand smoke - if people are just contrarians, then what can you do? But if they're mislead by a single-purpose account spinning the "debate" and employing an old tobacco-industry playbook of FUD and plausible deniability, then I'm not happy. If someone wants to take garlic tablets because they believe in herbal medicine, then more power to them. But if a herbal marketing consultant has edited the garlic article to suggest that the benefits of garlic are more medically substantiated than they actually are, or that statins are poisonous, then that's a problem. All three of these examples are drawn from my direct experience.

I'm on record as wishing it were easier to deal with obvious agenda-driven accounts, but this place can be a bit dysfunctional and prone to being seized by the hysteria-of-the-moment. Still, where else do your words have the opportunity to inform or educate so many people at once? MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start drinking more heavily if I keep this up. I posted on AN/I requesting protection of an article on the Toronto Maple Leafs, because a few editors were making rather rude remarks about the coach (who is in trouble). After I posted it, someone said, that's not bad, look at the New York Yankees article. Hell, is there a single article that's not controversial???? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the Leafs do suck. I just started this article: critical illness polyneuropathy, and so far so good. I'm still planning to go back to chronic myelogenous leukemia as well. Those have been under the controversy radar. MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "suck" is very POV. I would go for "The Toronto Maple Leafs are playing as poorly as the midget team St. George, Utah drunk on Genny Cream Ale."^{[citation needed]} OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the Leafs, actually the CML article has a certain relevance, in that one of their players, Jason Blake I believe, was diagnosed with CML. That is a rather non-controversial article, but so was Herpes zoster until the Alternative medicine nutjobs showed up. And a certain tendentious editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

please delete User_talk:Peachyms/

I started it by accident User_talk:Peachyms/ can you delete it or redirected. Do not delete User_talk:Peachyms The slash is an exploit and should be taken care of by developers but for now just delete or redirected please. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I redirected my user page and talk page to fix the inherit backslash problem. Most wysiwyg editor software will add a slash to a directory name if there is no file extension present, thinking it is a directory! So now User:Igorberger/ redirects to User:Igorberger. I do not know how you want to handle User_talk:Peachyms/ maybe delete is best because the user did not create it but I did by mistake.

I do recommend for the whole WikiPedia to adopt a slash redirect being that many Internet users post WikiPedia links in WordPress and other blog platforms this may be a big problem being that WordPress and other editors will assign a slash to URLs. I know they do it in signitures not sure if they do it in comments! Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I filled bugzilla bug report dir slash rendering bug 12703 if you interested please contribute to the bug report. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration statement - scientific topics

Hi there. Since the arbitration case looks unlikely to be accepted, I thought I should respond there on a point about your statement. In case you miss it in the long section there, I'm pointing it out to you here. We could discuss it here if you disagree with that? Maybe you had other articles in mind, but it is an interesting point to consider which articles are scientific topics and which are not, and which are the borderline cases. Science matters do, of course, need to be discussed sometimes within non-science topics, but care needs to be taken to get the balance right. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with your comment nearly 100%. What The Bleep is a film. While the article shouldn't be overly credulous toward the ideas put forward, it doesn't need to be a forum to debunk those ideas either. I touched on this one of my comments above. My comment wasn't directed toward What The Bleep - I haven't seen the movie and am not particularly interested in the article. It seemed that the case was a much broader attempt to address SPOV, and that was the context in which I commented. My biggest concern, and the one addressed by the ArbCom finding I quoted, is that Wikipedia loses respectability and credibility, and ultimately gets further from its goal of being a respected reference work, when unscientific or quasi-scientific ideas are presented as if they are supported by scientific evidence. An intersecting issue is the use of Wikipedia by accounts dedicated to popularizing specific fringe theories, but that's another ball of wax. Does that address your question, or am I missing your point? MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Looks like we agree. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

See here.[2] Probably nothing will come of it but just wanted to make you aware. Note Heelop apparently "overlooked" notifying the editors he named... Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you expect... Heelop is, according to his userpage, a "busy college student that is new to this scene." The scene in question being, presumably, the Mucoid Plaque Cures marketing department.

That article should have been deleted long ago. It fails WP:FRINGE in a major way. In the end, at the AfD, I was overwhelmed by well-meaning folks who suggested the article deserved to be kept as an example of an obvious, debunked fraud. The other shoe inevitably drops when the sources demonstrating that it's a fraud are picked apart and axed, leaving us with a misleadingly "balanced" article based on some guy's website. MastCell ^Talk 07:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Judie Brown

Hello. It seems that you failed to see my references, the awards, and the American Life League article. I really don't see how the president and co-founder of the largest Catholic pro-life educational grassroots organization in the United States is notnotable. I will remove the tag, but feel free to revert it if you have a good reason. I am still working on the article and the refs provide much more info than what is currently in the article. Editorofthewiki (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your references are not to independent, reliable secondary sources. The awards are of unclear significance at best. The claim that this is the largest Catholic pro-life education grassroots organization in the U.S., while containing quite a few qualifying adjectives, still appears unsourced as well. Hence the tag. I understand it's a new article and that you're working on it, which is why I didn't send it to AfD, but I wanted to give you a heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Block logs

Regarding this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_block_log_annotation_.28Whig.29

I sure wouldn't mind having my block log purged. I once got blocked as an April fool's joke! [3]

-- Fyslee / talk 07:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Check out my block log. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good one! I have heard of new admins who have inadvertently blocked themselves and had to be "let back in" by other admins. -- Fyslee / talk 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cute! :) It's been a long few weeks for me so I appreciated the giggles. Glad your not blocked! ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed images and Wikipedia:No original research

Hi MastCell,

I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.

Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can think of one case offhand, from about 6 months ago. I've added a comment describing it to WT:NOR. MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pennyfan87 requesting unblock

Pennyfan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting an unblock. He/she appears contrite and seems willing to obey the rules. I am inclined to grant the unblock request, but as you were the blocking admin, I thought it prudent to check with you. I only see the two meatpuppet edits from them; since this doesn't seem to be a long pattern of abuse, it seems appropriate to give them a chance to be a productive editor for the time being. If they cause other problems they can always be reblocked. What say you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with an unblock if they're professing to be interested in contributing, though I would ask that we both keep an eye on things. MastCell ^Talk 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I will watchlist his talk page for a while. If he doesn't do anything wrong for a month or so, I'll probably forget about him. But I will keep an eye on this to see how it goes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Man did I step into a hornet's nest there! Poor JoshuaZ is now taken the hits there. I really need to find a nice boring article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another IP

You may want to take a look at Special:Contributions/66.197.131.213 to see if you can recongnize a pattern related to another IP you just blocked... Pairadox (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/91.196.170.218 Pairadox (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Short blocks for both IP's (since they appear somewhat dynamic), and I semi-protected Talk:Glenn Greenwald to give everyone a brief respite. If the editing on sock puppet resumes after the current semi-protection expires, I'll extend that as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Weight and editor agreement regarding deletion policy

It seems to me that a lot of the edit warring with MastCell occurs because of his or her views on WEIGHT that are not supported by Wikipedia policy. In an effort to try to expand on an objective policy regarding the David Reardon and post-abortion syndrome articles, I've drafted an agreement of understanding regarding deletion (or non-deletion) of verifiable sources. It is posted in the discussion page here and in a working page for comments and changes at this editable version link.

I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions, especially if you think I am way off base...which I don't think I am.--Strider12 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already responded on the article talk page. Briefly, there's no need to create new policies or "understandings"; it would suffice to actually follow the existing policies. Outside opinion has been fairly unanimous that you are, in fact, off-base, but I admire your persistence. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis‎

I've created a request for mediation. Please list if you agree or disagree to participate on the article. If you want to discuss/expand anything related to it, please put it on the talk page. Thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So MastCell, you mentioned something about sticking to non-controversial subjects? Hmmmmm. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across any non-controversial articles yet! MastCell ^Talk 23:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LMAO, burn! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3rr review requested

Hi MastCell, would you mind checking the article history for the past 24~ hours at Free Republic? I don't think I violated 3rr, but if I did would you mind blocking me and let me know? I don't want a free pass from someone not reporting it if I made a mistake here. I requested the protection after the war broke out today on RPP, before things got out of hand. If I did violate, would you mind noting in the log that I "turned myself in"? I feel bad about this. Lawrence § t/e 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can stop right there - since the article is protected, any block for edit-warring or WP:3RR would be punitive rather than preventive at this point. Presumably, whichever admin protected the page made a determination that protection, rather than a block for edit-warring, was the appropriate response, which suggests that they did not see a clear 3RR violation on your part.

I make a rule never to block someone for 3RR if the article in question has already been protected, since the protection ends the edit war. If you think you might have violated 3RR, you can just undo your last revert as a sign of good faith (of course, you can't do so in this particular case because of the protection, but in general...) I'd just keep that in mind for next time; I don't see that anything needs to be done right now other than the protection which has already been placed by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell. I'm going to lay off that article going forward, as it's related to an RFAR I'm involved in. This was the first time I came that close, ever, and was worried I crossed the line. Thanks for the advice... Lawrence § t/e 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

That was the quickest archival of a thread I've ever seen. Not disagreeing at all but I'd love to know your thinking. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that the incident in question was resolved, and was serving only as a showcase for User:Smith Jones' uncanny ability to make people mad. :) Of course, it could be unarchived if there's something more that needs to be said about the incidents in question - that would be fine. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed you also archived the following thread, and I see the common factor now. I understand completely ;-) --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ctx

More - You dealt swiftly before - same again please — alex.muller (talk • edits) 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

glantz study

I'm sorry, my remark very well intended to "improve the article", and wasn't a general forum discussion, since it points out that the main article cites a very questionable source. Ironically, in your previous user talk, you invited me to discuss the article rather than changing an erroneous reference. So, I now invite you to either respond to my arguments concerning the Glantz-Dinno metastudy in the discussion page, if you don't agree with them, or else to change the article and cite more reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belshazb (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only "questionable" or "unreliable" in your opinion, which on Wikipedia doesn't really count for much in terms of impugning a published, peer-reviewed source. I'm not interested in debating your view of study vs. my view of the study. On passive smoking, which is like a porchlight attracting contrarian mosquitos (forgive the analogy), such arguments quickly overwhelm the intended purpose of the talk page. If a reliable source has criticized the study, then cite that source and we can discuss how to incorporate it. I'm not interested in using the article talk page as a forum to debate our respective editorial views of a particular study, though. MastCell ^Talk 05:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AN3 report

Hi. Could you provide more information at your AN3 report? Specifically, another user who was edit warring with Strider12 appears to have also exceeded 3 reverts and I'd like to know if there is anything non-obvious (ie, that some of the reverts were of content added in bad faith). Thanks. --B (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I left some additional thoughts on WP:AN3; just let me know if I didn't answer your question. Thanks for looking at the report. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF

O ye of little faith, I'm sure 48 is just well acquainted with the wiki environment from working in other completely unrelated projects and just stumbled on SA's talk page. Or, .......... maybe not. David D. (Talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize you're only semi-serious, but... the challenge with AGF in such areas is that even when your suspicions have been proven correct 99 times in a row, you still need to assume good faith on the 100th. That's not really part of human nature. I find the current interpretation of WP:AGF interesting. It's one thing to assume that a productive editor with whom you disagree is motivated by good faith rather than malice - that assumption facilitates a collaborative editing environment. It's quite another thing to assume that a brand-new account which leaps into promoting a specific agenda, continuing specific debates, and attacking specific editors in colorful terms is motivated primarily by a desire to build the encyclopedia. Though the guideline itself suggests that it's not necessary to assume good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary ([4], [5], [6]), I think WP:AGF is often interpreted to forbid questioning someone's motives even when those motives are manifestly unconstructive. I realize you're not doing that... just venting. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You think I'm even semi serious? :) Thanks for thinking I am overflowing with so much good faith. In wikipedia, when it walk like a duck should have equal validity, otherwise all the good editors disappear. This should be a serious concern. Show me one volunteer who enjoys wasting their time arguing about content disputes endlessly. Just one. It is clear this burns out the best wikipedia has, and very fast. David D. (Talk) 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on I am Dr. D

I studied the article and Wikipedia_talk:Open_proxies and didn't get answer to this question. Obviously Dr. D. is an experienced editor, and probably on Israel/Palestine and related issues. In this case would it be acceptable for Admins or whoever's responsible to just ask him who he was before and why he changed, in private conversation?? (I thought people were supposed to get some sort of permission to change user names anyway.) I mean if he's someone who's been banned that would seem relevant.

Having to deal with his being part of the tag team trying to prevent Jewish Lobby from being a balanced article that mentions the frequent non-antisemitic uses of the phrase, I certainly would like to think if he'd been banned or was a sock puppet this would have been seriously investigated, including by finding out who he was before. Something tells me he's not living in a country where he could get in trouble for his edits. Carol Moore 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Anyone can ask him - though it would be quite difficult to prove he was a certain editor, even via private correspondence, which is one of the reasons open proxies are generally discouraged. It is entirely possible he is a blocked, banned, or otherwise disgraced editor shedding the baggage of his block log; it's also possible that he's not. I've said my piece at the WP:AE thread; I find it more than a bit suspicious, but so long as he's reasonably behaved and the admins overseeing the articles are aware that he's using an open proxy (and could be anyone's sockpuppet), that's probably where things will stay for now. The atmosphere surrounding all of those articles is poisonous enough that I'm not interested in setting foot any further, but User:Thatcher and User:El_C are both reasonable, experienced, and non-partisan admins who are monitoring the situation, so you may want to briefly summarize your concerns to them as they will be taking a more active role than I in intervening. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I got it. I'll ask next time he posts in talk. Otherwise just keep that issue alive in talk so new users will be aware and old ones reminded. Thanks!!Carol Moore 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm not saying to keep it alive in the sense that you should keep repeating it on the talk page, because that will just tire everyone out. I think sharing your concerns with the admins who will be looking at user behavior is a good idea; User:Thatcher and User:El_C, at least, are already aware and are considering the issue. If you witness the account behaving in a disruptive manner, then it would certainly be an appropriate issue to raise. While he may or may not be willing to divulge his identity to a trusted neutral party, I doubt he'll provide it to someone perceived as an opponent on a content issue - and as I mentioned, even if he were to divulge an identity, it would be extremely hard to verify. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense! Have bookmarked page with discussion so know where to go when/if need to. :-) Carol Moore 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Lon Horiuchi followon

Have speedy tagged N Horiuchi. Any help in speedy deletion would be appreciated. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it already. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fat Smash

Well, I'd say the sections "What is the Fat Smash Diet?", "Getting Started", "BMI Calculator", "News", "Recipes", and collections of articles pertaining to the subject make it into the WP:EL standard. The fact that the site is called a "forum" doesn't change most of its content, even if there is one "forum" tab on which to click. нмŵוτн τ 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MastCell for Arbcom

You nailed it. That's about as clear and concise answer to this mess as anyone could possibly come up with. Friday (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah - thanks for the voice of support. When the two of us agree someone should be desysopped, watch out world! (remember User:Moriori and the ensuing beat-down?) You missed your chance, though - your vote would have pushed me up to a commanding 53.4% support! :) MastCell ^Talk 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Global warming

Thanks.[7] It wouldn't be quite so bad if people didn't insist on responding to this stuff. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Global warming talk protection

I think your protection of the global warming talk page is inappropriate and unnecessary. In article that already disallows anonymous users to contribute, blocking them from the talk page is a great injustice. The talk page is the only place they can propose changes and discuss whatever needs to be discussed about the article. You've effectively eliminated that possibility. Furthermore, the protection was wholly unnecessary. Our protection policy states, talk pages should only be protected if they are "subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly" as it expunges discussion. Reviewing the history, you find that the anonymous users have been mostly contributing in line with our talk page guidelines. There have been a few tests by anonymous users that are common of them and are easily revertible--and they have been reverted without problems. This is nothing close "persistent disruption" and is nothing that cannot be easily handled and nothing that justifies blocking the talk page. As the blocking administrator, I kindly ask that you reconsider and unprotect the page. Thank you. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The talk page has been subject to persistent disruption, including recurring WP:BLP violations, from IP editors. I have seen dozens of IP posts in the last few days, and very few or none of them were constructive or within the talk page guidelines. Virtually all of them have been reverted or removed from the talk page. The semi-protection is for 24 hours; it's not long-term, and I think that is "sparing" in view of the level of IP disruption and the ratio of abusive to constructive posts from IP's (for 24 January, that ratio was 8 to zero).

I'm not willing to unprotect it at this time - but if you want the decision reviewed, then you can take it to WP:RFPP (under "Requests for unprotection") and request that the page be unprotected. Since admins are sometimes a bit unwilling to undo other admins' actions, I'll hereby give my upfront approval to any admin who reviews the case and wants to unprotect the page (you can quote this diff). MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets be realistic: In the 24 hours prior to your page protection, there were four anonymous edits by three anonymous users. Two of them were tests common of new users all within a matter of minutes and were reverted without problem. This leave two anonymous edits by two anonymous users. One was an inappropriate comment that was reverted quickly. The last one was personal diatribe from the same single New York, NY editor who has presumably also been using the account User:Jaymes2 (who, by the way, has been here more than four days). Beyond that are simply anonymous users who are interested in improving the article via discussion. I don't think it's a good idea to disallow those people to discuss simply because of some easily-handled and minor "disruption." I don't want to involve other administrators, because I think we are two reasonable people able to discuss this and come up with a rational answer to this seemingly dichotomous problem. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The talk page exists to coordinate improvements to the article. The question is how to best facilitate those improvements. When the signal-to-noise ratio drops to zero for a few days, then a short period of protection may be the best way to allow interested editors (who, as far as I can tell, are hardly monolithic in their viewpoints) to discuss improvements in relative peace. I'm sensitive to the points you raise, and I don't think it's a black-and-white matter. Certainly the regular editors have been dealing with inappropriate comments in an efficient manner. I'll tell you what; I'll undo the protection and watch the page for a few more days, and then we can talk about how it looks at that point. I agree that since the regular editors are handling these posts appropriately, by reverting them rather than feeding into off-topic conversations, it's not as much of an issue. Let's see how things go. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Any opinions?

? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How about proposing a one month moratorium? All pro science editors simply stop editng for one month and abandon Wikipedia to the mob. If the result doesn't make the front page of the New York Times I'll bet..... It should cause the ArbCom members and Jimbo himself to stop and take notice. They need to take this matter seriously enough to establish an ArbCom Science Committee that can deal with questions like "Is homeopathy pseudoscience?" IOW a high level RfC that has binding consequences and creates policy. Such questions need to be settled. Then methods of effectively and quickly dealing with pushers of fringe POV who violate NPOV need to be developed.

May others propose other wording there? I'd like to see other versions on the same page and then we can take a vote and begin to use the one we choose. -- Fyslee / talk 05:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's what the heading "Discussion" is meant for. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I left my comments, for what they're worth. I think a "strike" is dangerous. A strike is always basically a game of chicken. Both sides get hurt, but you bank on the other side being less able to tolerate the pain. I don't think the dynamics of the situation are favorable. The thing about Wikipedia is that no one is really indispensible. I'm doubtful that other editors would necessarily rise up in support - and without the support of uninvolved editors and the community as a whole, the only result will be a qualitatively worse Wikipedia which remains at the top of Google's rankings. MastCell ^Talk 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, incremental action would be pointless. It would take a train wreck. And I'm not sure that would be a good thing, though my mind is open on the issue. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. The thing about causing a train wreck is that it hurts the train company, but it hurts the person who parks their car on the tracks much more. And in the end, the company will put another train on the route the next day. I love extended analogies. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It will cause the management to wake up. Nothing else has done it yet. It needs so radical a demonstration that the press will take notice. -- Fyslee / talk 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this section be copied to the appropriate page. Let's continue there. Can one of you do it? I have to leave. -- Fyslee / talk 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Passenger virus

Hi MastCell -- Passenger virus was used well before Duesberg hijacked the term, mainly relating to viruses found in cancers. I will try to edit the article to reflect the original usage -- I certainly agree that the current article focuses too heavily on Duesberg's claims. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I came across it as an obvious POV fork, one of many AIDS-denial ones floating about the sea of Wikipedia (albeit quite close to where the sewage-treatment plant empties). I didn't see a lot of other notable references, but since you've got some expertise in the area I appreciate your efforts to clean it up. MastCell ^Talk 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a stab, though I'm having trouble finding good references so it's mainly off the top of my head. Feel free to edit the statement on the Duesberg hypothesis. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help with this

Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it already went to checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sm565, and came back unrelated, so I think it's pretty much closed. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but an RfCU is not prima facie evidence of innocence. The edits are exactly the same. Both editors use this annoying system of creating new sections with BOLD type. See this section with numerous contributions from User:Sm565 where he uses bold type, bad grammar, and bad spelling.

Note this section where User:Area69 uses almost the exact same style. Sm565 is the puppetmaster. Area69 is the puppet. And Sm565 has been caught several times doing so. I have no clue why Sm565 got clear, but as we understand it, he was able to post from Greece and NYC frequently. I think that User:Rlevse closed it fast, probably because he dislikes me intensely, but otherwise, he didn't read the evidence. This is ridiculous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's clearly not a new account. Whether Sm565 is the puppetmaster will be a difficult call with the checkuser results coming back unrelated. In an ideal world, he would be ignored as an obvious single-purpose POV-pushing agenda account, at least till he'd demonstrated otherwise, but we don't live in an ideal world, do we? Let me look into it a bit further. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

~~::::Never mind. I guess I was right in a whole different way. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)~~

Duh. Different editors. But surprisingly similar in being an SPA. Now I'm curious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, occasionally you get lucky and the autoblock picks up an unsuspecting sockpuppet master. Anyhoo, I'll look into it when I get a chance. In the meantime, I'd suggest dealing with them like with any single-purpose POV account - respond to the specific points of policy and article content, and shun the off-topic stuff. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: second nomination

Hey, I noticed you were the closing admin for the last time "Ten Commandments for Drivers" was nominated... I was about to AfD it, but I never did learn how to nominate a previously nominated article, and seem to have made a mess of it... can you fix it, and I will add my reasoning accordingly? Cheers.JJJ999 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'll have a chance today, but if it can wait until tomorrow, just remove the AfD tag for now and I'll get to it... sorry :) MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can wait. cheersJJJ999 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK... go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten Commandments for Drivers (third nomination). Replace my text ("Rationale for deletion to be added here") with your rationale for deletion. Then let me know and I'll list it on the WP:AfD page. How does that sound? MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again.JJJ999 (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've listed it at WP:AfD, so the comments should start rolling in. A word of advice - you might want to tone down your summary of the second AfD - people will look at it and draw their own conclusion. You can leave it at mentioning that there was a 2-1 split in favor of deletion, but going further will just cause people to cite WP:NOTAVOTE. MastCell ^Talk 03:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I understand it's not a vote, that's why I said "probably" wrongly decided, but I don't agree with either the decision, or the reasoning given, I think the reasons and consensus both favoured deletion.JJJ999 (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I thought you just get involved with non-controversial medical articles. LOL. I'll have to admit, my first reading of the lead sounds awfully NPOV. I'm going to read it again, but I'd use that article as well-written one. Kind of odd that there are several articles on Wiki that state that Abortion does this or that. (Mental health is one I recall your pointing me to). Well good luck. I'm going to watch this one. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually a very decent article, and presents things pretty neutrally and accurately. I think there are some conceptual differences among frequent editors of the article, but it's certainly not a bad summary. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR block of 193.111.87.20

Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 193.111.87.20, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. BTW, if you come across any TOR blocks I've placed which are no longer TOR nodes, feel free to unblock them without asking me - though I appreciate the courtesy check. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Will do :) SQL ^{Query me!} 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)