User talk:MastCell/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Concerns

Just noticed your I-P ban of Historicist. This is obviously not scientific, but it seems like your admin actions in the I-P arena tend to run against editors that are seen as pro-Israel. The one action that stands out is the block of User:LuvGoldStar after the CU clerk thought it was unactionable and a CU came back negative. You know your contribution history better then myself at this point, so I ask you that check your history and see if my concerns are correct. Even if my concerns are validated, it of course does not mean that you have some anti-Israel bias; it's most probably a random coincidence. However, its very important that admins do not come across as biased, as to give contributors confidence that the system is run justly. I'm not interested in doing anything about this at this point, just bringing this issue to you informally, to hear what you think. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concerns here. I'd be happy to discuss either the LuvGoldStar or the Historicist actions in more detail if you'd like. In particular, I'd be happy to submit the Historicist topic ban for review at WP:AE or elsewhere if you feel it's inappropriate. My sense, however, is that your concern is more general.

I don't proceed out of a desire to "balance" my administrative actions by sanctioning a roughly equal number of editors from each POV. I don't think that's a good substitute for evaluating cases individually. I don't really feel like digging through my logs, but my last few actions in this particular arena include an indefinite block of Halfacanyon (talk · contribs), an advocate for the pro-Palestinian POV. More generally, I think that editing to advance a nationalistic agenda is deeply problematic on Wikipedia, whether that agenda is pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or pro-Ugandan.

I take your point about the need for admins to come across as unbiased. I suppose I wish that editors on these topics would feel a similar compulsion to come across as unbiased, or at least to give the impression that their participation in this project is not driven entirely by a desire to advance their agenda. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It may be a good idea to run the Historicist ban past WP:AE, just to make sure that his alleged wrongdoings are so egregious that he not be given a second chance to create articles like Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land, Tzippori Synagogue and Lod Mosaic Archaeological Center, all of which were DYK's. However, its best that the discussion take place in 2 weeks after the sweat dries from everyone's trigger-happy fingers.

But indeed, my concerns were more general. In a perfect world, admins should not be looking to "balance" their sanctioning actions. However, as long as the system stays the way it is and as much as they are distasteful, there will be POV-warriors here at WP. In contrast to regular editors, there really aren't any admins who use their admin tools in the I-P arena that are considered biased either which way. Its best for the current system that this reputation continue. Since we have no way of knowing if admins - who generally remain anonymous - have a real bias or are just being apolitical, its important that admins make sure not to give off even an impression of bias. If a non-action of an admin is glaring, there are plenty of other capable admins that can step in. I hope we're in agreement. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as the clerk on the LuvGoldStar case, I specifically allowed for the possibility of a block on behavior or other administrative determination. Use of the checkuser tool can't clear someone of socking, nor does an inconclusive result insulate an editor from a block. Nathan ^T 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I'm not convinced that "there are plenty of other capable admins" willing to step into messy disputes on I-P articles. That hasn't been my experience. In general, partisans on both sides have succeeded in creating an editing environment toxic enough to discourage most admins from intervening. Things may have improved since the last round of ArbCom-imposed sanctions - I haven't really looked in on it. It's nice to hear you say that the admins active on I-P articles aren't considered "biased" by the participants, but that also doesn't match my experience. Virtually every admin who has taken a meaningful action of any sort has been subject to accusations of bias from one side or the other - again, perhaps this has improved as I've not had much contact with the subject in some time.

I think it's important that admins not give off a reasonable impression of bias. The key word, as always, is reasonable. To that end, the best approach is probably a willingness to submit one's decisions for outside review by the community. I think I've always been willing to do so, and I'm certainly willing in this case. If I got objective feedback that my actions were biased - for example, if they were overturned or strongly questioned by uninvolved reviewers - then I would certainly need to take that to heart. I don't recall this happening, but perhaps I'm developing Alberto Gonzalez syndrome in my old age.

In any case, I am not currently an active administrator and I don't anticipate becoming much more active in the future. I'd be happy to submit the Historicist action for review at any point and will agree in advance to the results of community review of that sanction. It would be nice to see Historicist creating more good articles along the lines of those you cite. However, his behavior in this case - edit-warring to insert material that was questionable, if not an outright BLP violation, and creating a sock immediately to continue the inappropriate behavior - is an egregious violation of our policies and predictably worsens an already toxic editing environment; it is also recidivism given previous blocks on the same topic. This is, to my mind, exactly the sort of behavior with which the most recent ArbCom case signals a loss of tolerance. I'm a bit concerned to see you minimize this behavior as "alleged" wrongdoing.

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria, a number of editors who had contributed excellent and even featured content on I-P topics were nonetheless banned from those areas due to ongoing problems. In that context, I don't see Historicist's 3 DYK's as a major counterbalance to the unacceptably poor behavior. That said, the topic ban is indefinite in the sense of having no fixed length, not indefinite in the sense of forever, so I would be open to revisiting it myself at some point, or of course the community or ArbCom could see fit to lift it at any point. I hope that addresses some of your concerns, even if it does not allay them. MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins tend to be yelled at after any sanctioning of a popular editor, but it's the long term reputation that I have in mind, of which most admins come up clean.

Subjecting any sanctions to community review is a good thing, but its practical advantage is unclear. Firstly, all admin actions are subject to community review. Secondly, the admin action that was taken is seen as the default with the burden on those wanting to remove the sanctions.

The ARBCOM ruling resulted in the ban of a number of great contributors, buy the impression a number of editors and myself is that it was just to make a general point about edit-warring and they thought that the importance of not edit warring calls for this great sacrifice. Although they claimed afterwards that in the future they will be tough in the same way, it's practical application is questionable. Pretty much all editors heavily entrenched in the i-p arena have misbehaved at some point. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Brew, the editor had been editwarring over material that a number of users felt was in violation of WP:BLP, then socked to continue editwarring on the same page and a number of other pages. You really want to pick this case to make an argument? nableezy - 06:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think his concern was general, rather than specific to the case of Historicist (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this article is covered in the scope of the ARBPIA topic ban? Specifically the History section? nableezy - 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As written, yes, that's a clear violation of the spirit of the topic ban and also of its letter, for that matter. I have left a note for Historicist (talk · contribs); further edits to that page, or edits of this ilk, will result in a block. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I have to say I am a bit concerned with how Historicist is using his regained freedom to edit in the topic area. He has been going through adding negative information to BLPs sourced solely to NGO Monitor, which is in my opinion an unreliable source and without doubt being used as a primary source. See Sarah Leah Whitson and the edits to Marc Garlasco and Criticism of Human Rights Watch. If you say these edits are not a problem I will drop it, but I dont see how using a source as poor as NGO Monitor in BLPs is acceptable. nableezy - 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point Historicist is under a 1RR restriction and I will continue to monitor it. I find some of those BLPs questionable, as both poorly sourced and fundamentally WP:COATRACKy. At the same time, I would prefer to see how things shake out before taking any further action. If you have ongoing concerns, it may be worth filing a formal report at WP:AE or at WP:BLP/N to get other outside opinions beyond my own. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:TimVickers

Not entirely sure how you got involved, but TimVickers used a template threatening me with a block for re-adding a WHO tag to Chiropractic. If you look at the talk page, even Tim himself acknowledges that the sentence I re-tagged should have the opinion attributed - which, if you read the link, is what the tag requests. If you look at the history of the Chiropractic article, I originally added two tags - and . The subsequent edits only fixed the , not the , which is why I re-added it. If you really think I am in the wrong and TimVickers is in the right, I'm happy to discuss this further. --Surturz (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the history. I'm not saying you're "wrong" and Tim is "right". I would poke my own eyes out with a fork before I'd get involved in a dispute about citations tags on chiropractic. My point was this: if you object to being templated, then the most productive response is to say so, maturely, on Tim's talk page. A less productive response - which you chose - was to slap a template on his page and say "Hah! Now we're even! Wasn't that annoying?" If you think templating the regulars is inappropriate, then don't do it. Read the nutshell synopsis of WP:POINT for a pithier explanation of my concern. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Tit for tat is well known to be a successful strategy for modifying the behaviour of others. YMMV --Surturz (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well. That is a diff worth preserving in amber. I'm curious whether you read past the lead of our article on tit for tat. For example, did you reach the section entitled "Problems"? It reads, in part:

A one-time, single-bit error in either player's interpretation of events can lead to an unending "death spiral". In this symmetric situation, each side perceives itself as preferring to cooperate, if only the other side would. But each is forced by the strategy into repeatedly punishing an opponent who continues to attack despite being punished in every game cycle. Both sides come to think of themselves as innocent and acting in self-defense, and their opponent as either evil or too stupid to learn to cooperate.

Ring any bells? MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Tim hasn't templated me a second time, so I'll call it a successful tit. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking in general terms, a good way of breaking such an unproductive interaction is indeed to rise above it. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I think I'll template myself as a form of penance. MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development

There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to User talk:MastCell. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh Shot info (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

*Cough*

Did you mean this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, didn't mean to do that to poor DGG. Not sure how that happened - I've fixed it. Sometimes I think rollback should have a "confirm" screen; it's so close to other useful buttons and tabs, and on a 1920x1200 monitor with my eyesight not what it used to be... I must have been asleep at the switch. Thanks for the heads-up; I hadn't noticed it. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to design a template for you. On the other hand, that would require creativity ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have sometimes wondered if it would be possible to have a real conversation, involving a significant interchange of ideas, using only Wikipedia templates. Perhaps such a project would even qualify as art; I've seen odder things in Chelsea. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Ceoil, Outriggr, and The Fat Man have defined that territory. Somewhere. And if you're in Chelsea, why haven't you invited me for tea? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Without WP:OUTING you, I figured you lived in a certain southern state that was always on Ray Charles' mind. It's a long way to Chelsea. MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel so underestimated ... you really thought I was dumb enough to put my location in my username? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, then - you never struck me as a New Yorker. Take that as a compliment. MastCell ^Talk 06:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not: I do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: David Reardon Page

Welcome back.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize I was gone! :) MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen you around.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Milo

In light of the interesting diff's you've cited, I can only say this: [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I debated whether to say anything at all. I'm still not sure it was the right venue. On the one hand, if it's a simple matter of promising not to sue someone, then of course he should be unblocked and the case dismissed. On the other hand, if the meaning of the legal-threats policy is a bit deeper - if it's aimed at preventing attempted intimidation of other editors and chilling of debate - then I think the history of the account in question is useful context. It's not a one-off unfortunate misunderstanding; it's part of a systematic approach to disagreement that involves bullying and attempted intimidation. That was my point, but again, I'm not sure it was the right venue in which to make it. MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RFAR Statement

As a friendly heads up, your statement in the current RFAR is nearing 700 words long. As requested by the arbitration committee on the RFAR page, statements should be kept below 500 words. Although the current length is ok for now, please don't increase the length of it. It is worth remembering that as this stage you are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. Many thanks for you time reading this.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I didn't count. I'd be happy to cut it down to just the diffs, since I think they speak for themselves, if you'd like. I'll leave it alone for now. MastCell ^Talk 05:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Advocates for Children in Therapy

The usual. See his last diff. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

and againFainites ^barleyscribs 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

I've proposed that this article and its talk page might be unprotected and watched with great vigilance to see if the problem has gone away. The article was semiprotected by Jfdwolff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in August, 2008 and you semiprotected the talk page at about the same time. --TS 22:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep this discussion in one place, I'll respond on Jfdwolff's page. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine with me to lift the semiprotection. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable or crap?

T-loop deletion factor - does this make any sense? It's been languishing in new page patrol, probably because no one really knows if its a hoax or more or less accurate. Nathan ^T 01:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Listed for deletion. If you want a laugh, I'd recommend reading the "paper" this article is based upon. link. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, should have checked that out. Tells me everything I need to know. Nathan ^T 05:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Could you look this over? This article needs to be both conservative and absolutely accurate, since it might get high-profile if these people actually do sue. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Prodding you gently after the suit has been filed, you can respond by e-mail if you don't feel like getting involved on the talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My people have old saying, "Anyone who get involved with article about organization with active lawsuit against Wikipedia editors have brains made of borscht." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true, but I feel I have a duty to make sure that only accurate and verifiable information is presented by Wikipedia. After all, if something is wrong and unflattering, than is indeed defamatory. However, if something is correct but unflattering, then reporting this fact may be in the public interest. Legal threats should not deter us from reporting verifiable facts. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider me duly prodded. I will get back to you in the next 1-2 days about this. MastCell ^Talk 06:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Historicist

Hello,

I notice that you recently lifted User:Historicist's ban on editing Israel-Palestine articles, and allowed him to operate under 1RR restrictions. I thought you might want to be aware of this post, which seems to violate Wikipedia:NPA. (For more context: [2], [3].) CJCurrie (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with Historicist's choices since I lifted the topic ban; they've sort of confirmed my initial instincts when I placed the ban. Still, I also don't want to be in the business of policing him. If you want my advice, take the high road and ignore what is fairly obvious goading and baiting. Alternately, you can ask for additional administrative feedback at WP:AE; I would be happy to discuss this with other uninvolved admins, but I'm not really feeling like being the go-to point person policing Historicist. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I realize, reading over my response, that it sounds like an abdication of responsibility. I will continue to observe this situation. At the same time, it might be worth asking for additional administrative feedback, e.g. at WP:AE. I may do this myself, as a sanity check, if things continue along their current course. MastCell ^Talk 06:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a quotation from My Plan

"

• User:Art LaPella is willing to report to my adviser(s)/mentor(s) should I be disruptive at DYK. He has not seen any disruptive behavior on my part there.[4]
• User:YellowMonkey says he does not put up with unruly behavior at FAR, so there are no worries there, I think.[5] He encourages me to participate in FAR.[6]

"

Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am number 127 on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest, so you can see that only a very small number of my edits are problematic, and only wih a very small number of editors with whom I have dealt, and not any of them regarding article edits. Almost all editors have been extremely appreciative of my work. I hope you will be also. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is universal agreement that you've contributed a substantial amount of quality content to Wikipedia, which I appreciate as a fellow Wikipedian. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse

Hi MastCell. The incident which caused Mattisse's blocking has been discussed at length on and off Wikipedia with Mattisse. She has served the two week block. She is now back to concentrate on her productive editing. I think we can best assist her with this by not dwelling on the incident. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me directly and I will be happy to help. SilkTork *^YES! 07:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We probably differ in what we consider the best approach to the situation, though I'm sure we all share the goal of a harmonious editing environment. The intent of my questions was to figure out what had been learned, and what could or would be done differently, to prevent history from repeating itself again.

I have to say that I don't find the present atmosphere very easy to deal with - I sensed that I was made out to be a bully for raising what I see as very simple and important questions. The circle of Mattisse-as-victim and anyone-concerned-about-the-situation-as-bully is one of the more unfortunate recurrent themes in the problematic interactions. Insofar as her mentorship has been criticized, it's generally been for reinforcing that dynamic.

That said, I recognize the sensitivity of the situation and will consider what the most productive way forward is. It is not my intention to cause Mattisse, or anyone, distress. At the same time, I'm not quite ready to accept the status quo, which I think is unhealthy for all concerned. I will probably follow up with a couple of general questions on your talk page. Thanks for your note. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can i ask you to take a look at...

Climate change denial and the corresponding talk page? Basically i'm asking you to look at it, because i think this has blown way out of proportion. I'm frustrated here, and rather than taking this to a board, i'd like someone with good communication skills to tell me if i need a break :) [sorry - i'm simply too tired to formulate sentences in english at this point]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's about the "See also", then I think it's rarely, if ever, worth fighting over a See also. It's the kind of thing that a reader is unlikely to care about; it's just a convenient place for people to do battle. Win that fight by being the first one to drop it. I think the BLP-bomb has been employed a bit cavalierly. On the other hand, the manual of style actually favors omitting Cooney and Singer from the See Also section, since they are already mentioned and wikilinked in the article body. User:2over0's comments make sense, as always.

More generally, the current atmosphere more or less precludes any positive, constructive engagement. The best thing to do is probably to step back for a day or two; do other stuff; see how things shake out; and then come back and focus on the issues you see, starting with the most important. Several editors active there are quite apt, intentionally or not, at getting under one's skin... all the more reason to let it go for a bit, refresh yourself, and come back to it in a few days. That's not to say that you're "wrong"; it's just a suggestion that I've found helpful for one's mental health and longevity as a Wikipedian.

Wikipedia is full of people with an endless capacity for argument. A rational person who approaches this project as a fun, meaningful hobby can never outlast a dedicated, tenacious single-agenda account in a test of endurance. Or even if you could, it would cost you the enjoyment of editing here, so it wouldn't be worth it. More likely, you'll get tired and frustrated, say something inapt which will live on in the page history forever... and you know the rest. If someone's spoiling for a fight, don't play along. A lot of people are here just to argue, and they'll get bored if no one argues with them.

Not sure if that's what you were looking for, but it's advice I've been given in the past and found useful (if not easy to follow). But hey, your userpage says you're an experienced COBOL programmer, so you must be good at dealing with mind-bending frustration... :P MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to this before. Thanks for the advice, its been taken to heart. It's mainly the BLP-bomb issue that i have problems with, this is going to become extremely problematic in the future, not because of the See Also's, which are petty - but because of the expansive nature of the arguments given. We're not going by what is problematic by BLP - but instead by what "some feel" to be problematic with regards to BLP's. (btw. i only program COBOL when absolutely necessary... like most C programmers i hate it like the plague (unfortunately i'm the systems guy at a COBOL company, so shunning it is not an option)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that Y2K is over, there's absolutely no reason to switch away from COBOL. Not until the year 2100, at least... I was taught to program in C/C++, but it's hard for me to pick it up now. It feels so menial to have to worry about memory management. But then I was always too lazy and poor at applied math to be a programmer anyway, which is why I took a different career path. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing side discussion to head off the temptation to shoot for The Last Word

MastCell, a "see also" implies association, and when the linked article is a label applied to a person, the "see also" looks a lot like a categorization. If that categorization is unflattering, then it is inappropriate unless the evidence is strong. Bernie Madoff has "see also: con man" because, well, he's a con man. He admitted as such in a court of law. Philip Cooney is linked from CCD because the NY Times has evidence he actually modified documents. But it must be used with care. Putting "see also: CCD" in all AGW-skeptics' articles is problematic because CCD is identified as a bad faith act, and unless there is very reliable evidence that they acted in bad faith (and aren't just misguided ;-)), categorization should not be implied. Note, accusations of denial (with a link to CCD) from reliable sources (e.g. respected opinions) are acceptable in the article text, it is only the category-like "see also" that is a concern. There are real issues here, and I don't think it helps the debate to imply that the concerns are invalid. ATren (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Since I said above that fighting about a "See Also" is the height of silliness, surely you don't expect me to do so here? I think the "See also" should be removed, as I said in my post above. It adds nothing to the article's completeness or accuracy, and it contravenes the manual of style. I also agree with your comparison to categorization; since they lack context, I think "See alsos" should be withheld unless they're relatively unarguable (of course, nothing on Wikipedia is absolutely "unarguable", as we continually demonstrate). I don't see where I've implied otherwise; in fact, I seem to recall advising Kim, in this very thread, to drop the matter. On a more general level, I would sooner poke my eyes out with a fork, or edit cold fusion, than engage in the current debate surrounding these articles. I was responding to a request for advice from an editor whom I respect, and suggesting gently that he step back from a content position which I don't think is constructive in the long run. Do you think that an interruption from one of the combatants is a useful contribution to that process? MastCell Talk 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC) one of the combatants - What is combative about what I wrote? I was only responding to your judgement that it's just a convenient place for people to do battle, which implied the argument had no merit. If that was not your intent, then I happily agree with you. :-) ATren (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Either you actually do understand why I described you as a combatant - in which case you're feigning incomprehension - or else you truly don't understand, in which case I don't think it will be productive to try to explain. Let's just agree that we agree on the "See also" and leave it there. MastCell Talk 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC) OK then, healthy debate == combativeness. Got it now. Thanks for clarifying. ATren (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:2over0's comments make sense, as always. No kind word goes unpunished - you have email. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply on my talk

Hey, MastCell, just wanted to let you know I've quite belated responded to a comment of yours on my talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Historicist

Hi, you may be the best person to decide about this, as you were handling the issue before. I'll comment on the request itself on AE.  Sandstein  21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've left a comment there; I agree entirely with your assessment. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker

Regarding the recent post on Colloidal Silver, I received this email around the same time. I have set the record straight about not editing the article or talk page until the topic ban is lifted.

Hi

The ban has ended. It seems I can edit colloidal silver after all. Perhaps it was just the poor wording below from Matthewedwards that made it look like I was permanently banned.

Thanks for your support.

I shall be more careful.

Regards

So I hope you too can AGF on this slip up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I thought it might be a misunderstanding, which is why I simply removed the post instead of complaining at AN/I or the like. I probably should have elaborated as well, but I was tired. Anyhow, it looks like we're all on the same page now. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your attempt to get my User:Tkguy/Asian fetish and User:Tkguy/Asiaphile pages deleted

This is regarding your attempt to have two of my user pages deleted. These pages were created while I was attempting to prevent these pages from being vandalized by people determined to do any an all things to have the terms mitigate or deleted from wikipedia. As discussed here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile

I don't think restoring them necessarily makes sense. They're clearly long-term archives of one version of disputed content in userspace, without any clear effort to make them ready for prime time, and they violate WP:UP#COPIES. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are concerned with my discussion with User:Mangojuice. Like User:Mangojuice wrote there's no real concensus to have my page deleted. I will gladly deal with your conern that I am not making these pages "ready for prime time", so there shouldn't be any issues with having them being restored. If you have more concerns please let me know. Tkguy (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to express my concerns more clearly than I already have. You've been blocked repeatedly for edit-warring and trying to force this content into articlespace. You've now archived it in userspace, apparently indefinitely, without making any attempt to improve it or address other editors' concerns. It clearly violates WP:UP#COPIES; if you really have an interest in improving the article, then just go to the actual article and work on it. Not complicated. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's apparent to anybody who reads my edits that I've been trying to defend the Asian fetish and Asiaphile pages from deletion and mitigation. I've done this to the point where I was banned for edit warring with the very people who participated in several of the 5 failed deletion request for the Asian fetish page. And here I am defending my version of the pages from deletion by you. I suggest you state exactly what part of my user pages you do not like and what edits I've done that you do not like. Be specific instead of bringing up that I was banned. First you use the Wikipedia:UP#NOT reason to have my page deleted now you are using Wikipedia:UP#COPIES. Seems to me it's not complicated to figure out that you just want my pages deleted which is in direct violation of Wikipedia:EM. Explain to me how you are not in direct violation of Wikipedia:EM? Tkguy (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Err, Tkguy, have you actually read those two links Mastcell gave you? It's quite clear the reasons why articles deleted in article space, aren't to be left in userspace. He's also explained it above. Ta Shot info (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A) You can't really be "in violation of" an essay. And I do believe that editors matter, which is why you were restricted from edit-warring, name-calling, and trying to ram your changes unilaterally down the throats of other, more law-abiding editors.

B) You're correct that I at first erroneously cited WP:UP#NOT rather than WP:UP#COPIES. This error was pointed out by someone else and I corrected it. They are, of course, anchor links on the same policy page, but I apologize for any confusion.

C) If you find that you've "defended" an article so successfully that you've acquired multiple blocks for edit-warring and a 1RR restriction, then you may be a tendentious editor.

Anyhow. Go ahead and work on the pages. If they continue to lie around in userspace, then I may ask that they be re-listed for discussion. In general, I'm unclear why you are unwilling to try to engage on the actual articles and talk pages and instead prefer to archive your preferred (and rejected) version of the content in userspace. MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well your Wikipedia:UP#COPIES argument is now moot considering I am back. You need to come up with another reason to have my user page deleted. According to Wikipedia:EM deleting user pages should not be done with the kind of determination you have. I leave a message on Mango's talk page and you jump write in with all your reasons for why my pages must be deleted. How is this encouraging contributions on wikipedia? As for you bring up once again the fact that I received a 1rr restriction. Guess what this is for Asian fetish page. A page that is infamous for surviving 5 deletion requests. And I am one of the many people trying to make sure that people do not delete or mitigate the term. But now the article is filled with references from date books and economists claiming that Asian fetish does not exist. Tkguy (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are indeed planning to work on the draft with the goal of addressing other editors' concerns and moving it into articlespace, then yes, my concern would be moot. It might be worth inviting other editors to look at and edit your draft. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Review changes to hep articles (medical TP watchers needed)

Hi, Could you or one of your medical stalkers please review the recent edits of Truthstands (talk · contribs). It's a bit too medical technical for my tired mind... Verbal chat 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For example, if I wasn't tired I'd have posted to the medical wikiproject. Verbal chat 19:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What he's writing is basically correct; variations in hepatitis C virus genotype predict the response to treatment, and he's adding recently published material on additional genotypic determinants of response among "genotype 1" patients (who typically have the poorest overall response to therapy). It's probably not the best way to go about adding the material, but at this point it looks like someone who's honestly trying to add useful and fundamentally sound material to the encyclopedia and is just new. So I think they should be welcomed and maybe given some gentle suggestions, and the material integrated into the existing articles where appropriate (and perhaps excised from those where it is a bit tangential). MastCell ^Talk 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a gent. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

It appears that the autoblocks have all cleared. Your advice was not paternalistic in the slightest; but rather, sound and honest. Apologies to the community.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On unblocking an uncivil editor

Mastcell. I find it disturbing that you have unblocked user Die4dixie given 1) and foremost the hatefulness and viciousness of the personal attack. Die4Diexie has shown regret for the attack only after it happened, and even though he struck the message shortly afterward, he offered no apology to the offended user, which clearly shows some contempt on his part. Moreover, he gave a generic apology only after being blocked. 2)There was an overwhelming support for a block on the ANI, including from 3 administrators, of whom one (Sandestein) even called for an indefinite block.

3)The block was reviewed by an uninvolved administrator who clearly expressed some concern over the pattern of incivility by this user. Thus, recommended that the block stayed so that, this user could think more clearly about why his actions were simply wrong.

I suppose Die4dixie e-mailed you and promised not to do it again (something he has already promised in the past) but given the points listed above, I find it somewhere appalling that you have lifted the block considering the nature of the offense and the voiced opinions of some members of the Wikipedia community. I only hope you won’t regret this decision and that this user immediately apologizes to Frank Pais for whishing that his mother was killed.

PS: It would also be nice if you made public the e-mail exchange so there’s at least a logical rationale for unblocking him. Regards, Likeminas (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Email is private. I do not intend to have any interaction with you for at least a week. Please rerfain from mentioning me and I will do you the same courtesy. I have apologized for offending the community. If you cannot accept this, step back until you can. Sorry MastCell for responding on you. page, but this has got to stop. My actions were regretable. Please accept this and move on, Likeminas. Anyone can now have the last word.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the pattern of uncivility I wouldn't be surprised that you get blocked again. And don't apologize to me or the community, apologize to the user you so despicably offended. Show your sincere regret to him, not just to an administrator thta might unblock you. That's all I will say on this.Likeminas (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

← I'm not willing to release email correspondence from other editors absent their express permission. To summarize, Die4Dixie emailed me expressing contrition for his remarks. I felt, based on his representation, that he understood why his remarks were inappropriate, and that similarly inappropriate outbursts and further disruption were unlikely. Since blocks are preventative and not punitive, that judgment logically leads to a decision to unblock an editor. The block is not intended to "punish" him for what was an unarguably hateful post, but to prevent further such attacks. I think the lesson has been learned; if not, then given the history here it will be an easier call next time.

I think it would be ideal, on a human level, for Die4Dixie to apologize to Frank Pais. At the same time, if an apology is to mean anything, it needs to be spontaneous and not coerced. To be clear, I think there was universal condemnation of Die4Dixie's post, and multiple admins felt it was blockworthy (including me). Any sort of repetition would be unfortunate, because it would indicate that the benefit of the doubt was misplaced, and it will be dealt with. At the same time, the block is not intended to punish someone or coerce an apology, only to prevent further egregious attacks against other editors. I think (hope) that it has served that purpose. If it appears to have failed, then please let me know. In the meantime, I think disengagement is probably the best approach. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Another request for edit review for you or the medical TPLs

I don't think Amygdalin is one of your watched articles, but I saw the recent edits about positive in vitro studies added here and I remembered you dealing with the colloidal silver article regarding due weight of in vitro studies there, so here I come running to you. I was hoping you or another knowledgeable individual could see whether these are reliable and weighted correctly. The dental school bit raised a red flag, considering I don't see the relevance of dentistry to oncology. Thanks, Auntie E. 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not on my watchlist, but I've taken a look. I think we already discussed these studies, but I can't find the discussion, so maybe it's a manufactured memory. Picking out two obscure and carefully selected in vitro primary sources from the dental literature and placing them on equal footing with the unanimous opinion of every expert medical and scientific body to have studied the issue... exactly the sort of thing that WP:MEDRS forbids. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks again. Auntie E. 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up questions

Hi, and thanks again for your note. I'll take the opportunity to ask you a couple of the questions I had initially posted at User Talk:Mattisse. In particular, I was interested to know how you conceive of your role as mentor, and how you might approach a hypothetical situation in which Mattisse returns to some of the behavior that has been problematic in the past (I have in mind specifically making insinuations and swipes in pursuit of old grudges). I'll emphasize that I haven't seen any such behavior from Mattisse since returning from the recent block, but I do think that it would be worth discussing how such a situation might be dealt with should it occur, and what might be done differently to achieve a better outcome. If you'd prefer not to respond, that's fine. If you'd prefer to respond off-wiki, feel free to email me; anything you say there will be kept completely confidential, though I can't promise to respond by email. Thanks again. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if you haven't read it already, then this is useful. It clarifies some of the points. To give a quick summary, as I think the plan and mine and other's role in it has been somewhat misunderstood: Mattisse was requested by ArbCom to submit a plan to govern and guide her editing. As part of that request the notion of mentors or advisors being involved to help shape the plan was raised, and it was considered how these people could continue to give assistance. The idea of the plan was that Mattisse should reflect on those situations which cause her stress and to consider ways of dealing with that stress. My involvement is to be available to give Mattisse honest advice when requested, and - if needed - to urge her to cease activity in a certain area, and block her if she does not respond positively.

I want to make it clear that the plan as accepted by ArbCom was to give responsibility to Mattisse for her own actions. And that includes her own decision as to when to call on me and the others for advice. Within the plan was also the freedom of myself and others to give advise to Mattisse as and when we felt appropriate, but we had no responsibility to overlook Mattisse's edits or her behaviour.

Mattisse has historically not responded well to some interactions on Wikipedia. There are differing opinions on Mattisse's own responsibility for this, though there is an acceptance that Mattisse has been stalked and goaded. One of the outcomes of the ArbCom case was looking at how Mattisse could deal appropriately herself with actual or perceived negative interactions. The outcome was not that Mattisse should be monitored.

I do feel that people should revisit the case and acquaint themselves both with the outcomes and the discussions leading to those outcomes. A good understanding of the case should answer any queries about the role of myself and others.

I also feel that a good study of the plan is helpful. Mattisse is responsible for herself, but can call on us for advice. If she decides not to do this (as was the case with the recent alternative account behaviour which led to her block) then that is her responsibility, and she must face the consequences. She allows in her plan for any admin to warn and block her for inappropriate behaviour.

In the blocking incident it was clear that Mattisse acted inappropriately, and - as with any editor who acts inappropriately - she attracted attention and was blocked.

My involvement in this was to look into the issue and on the one hand inform Mattissee that I found her behaviour unacceptable, and on the other to speak with the blocking admin as I felt that a 2 week block was harsh in the circumstances. I did not, however, reduce the block myself, nor insist the blocking admin unblock Mattisse.

I have been disappointed but not surprised by some of the negative comments left on Mattisse's talkpage. I am uncomfortable with your own line of questioning as I feel it is inappropriate and unhelpful - and answers to your questions can be found with careful reading of the cases notes.

In short: Mattisse is responsible for her own actions. She acted inappropriately and received a block. We wait to see if Mattisse will act inappropriately again. If she does, then ArbCom - who retain jurisdiction over the case - may reopen the case and seek other remedies. The mentors/advisors are not responsible for monitoring - we are here to be consulted by Mattisse. SilkTork *^YES! 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A concrete follow-up which will actually answer many of my questions: what do you think of this and this? MastCell ^Talk 05:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They are comments made by Mattisse on WP talkpages. I don't know the background to why the comments were made. Mattisse has not asked for my assistance. Are they disruptive comments? Given past history, they are not helpful, and could develop into unnecessary conflict, but I'm not sure they are actually disruptive in themselves - more gestures of frustration which are better kept to herself. Do they assist in building a positive image of Mattisse? Unfortunately not - they fit in with the perception of her as someone who engages in low-level grumblings. Personally I would like to see Mattisse make helpful comments - even if criticisms - rather than statements that are not advancing the position. On a positive note, Mattisse was reminded in both cases to step away, and she did so. Neither matter escalated. Are they worth mentioning to Mattisse as examples of the sort of comment that she might be better advised not making? Yes, I think so. Does the matter need to be taken any further? No, I think don't so. They are simply misplaced gestures of frustration. SilkTork *^YES! 01:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's reasonable. If you would touch base with her along the lines you describe above, that would probably be beneficial, but up to you. MastCell ^Talk 04:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what I indicated above that I would do. However, I see that there is a discussion taking place, and so will await the outcome of that rather than stir the coals further. Your alertness to comments by Mattisse has been noted. SilkTork *^YES! 17:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding, could you elaborate on your last sentence? I'm inferring that you think I'm inappropriately monitoring Mattisse - is that a correct inference? MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already gently indicated that I feel your comments on Mattisse's talkpage and your questioning here are unhelpful: "I'm not sure what your purpose is, but as suggested above, it might at this moment be more helpful if you read the ArbCom case", "I think we can best assist her with this by not dwelling on the incident.", "I am uncomfortable with your own line of questioning as I feel it is inappropriate and unhelpful". My above comment on your alertness was what I said - I have previously noted your interest in Mattisse, and now I am noting that you are currently alert to her postings. I would welcome a response to my earlier question as to why you are taking an interest in Mattisse. She already has a number of people paying attention to her postings - what value do you feel you can bring over and above those already watching her? And how do you feel that your attention would be helpful to Mattisse, and/or the project as a whole? SilkTork *^YES! 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You and her other mentors had previously suggested that rather than ask Mattisse direct questions about her actions, I should contact you with any concerns on your talk page. Similarly, you recently told SandyGeorgia: "If at any time in future you feel that Mattisse is engaging in unseemly conduct, it might be helpful to contact myself or any of the others who signed up to the plan. We could look into it, and give Mattisse our views on what is happening. If you or others do not alert us to potential problems then in all likelihood we will miss it, as we are not watching Mattisse, nor have we been required to do that."

I took your words at face value and raised a concern here in which I know I'm not alone. Your response is to coyly insinuate that I'm the problem because I have an unhealthy "interest" in Mattisse's edits. No, she posted to WP:AN/I, which I regularly read (against my better judgment). There, I see her continuing the same pattern of vindictive obsession with a few specific editors that has caused so much trouble in the first place. I raised my concern with one of her mentors. Which part of that chain of events is inappropriate? Do you see how your earlier promise of responsiveness to concerns sounds a bit hollow in light of your response here? MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey - pause, rewind and read back. Where haven't I responded to any of your questions? And where have you responded to my request to explain your interest in Mattisse? If I haven't yet made it clear, let me make it plain now: I think your attention is not helpful. I think your attention is inappropriate. I find the tone of your questioning unpleasant. You suggest I speak to Mattisse after I have already said I would consider raising the issue with her (and then decided not to as it seemed the matter was being raised plenty enough already - a view I note was shared by Newyorkbrad - an editor whose opinion I respect). I was prepared to assist you, as it is my nature to want to help out. I have given you fairly expansive answers - which have been rather time-consuming at a period when I have limited access to Wikipedia and would rather be doing something more productive. Your digging into my motives, and saying incorrectly that I have made empty promises is rather grating in the circumstances. I have prepared for you detailed statements, yet you fail to respond to my inquiries. And let us be clear there is a difference between alerting someone to something happening, and asking for a "concrete follow up". I suspect that we are not going to agree on a number of issues, and I'm not interested in hair splitting. I don't feel my time is being productively used by answering your queries. As such I withdraw my offer of assistance to you. My best suggestion to you is to spend your time productively building the encyclopedia. There are already too many people looking at Mattisse - she really does not need anyone else to inspect her postings. However, if you want to explore further - then please ask someone else, and it would be helpful if you explained to them why you wish to get involved. SilkTork *^YES! 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't respond to your insinuations about my motivation because I don't want to play that game. I would prefer we focus on dealing with the rather large elephant in the middle of the room, rather than discrediting anyone who notes its existence. Mattisse tends to assume that people are motivated by concerted personal malice toward her. I would hope that a mentor would address that tendency of hers, rather than echo and enable it.

Read the above interaction again; I was satisfied with your response and described it as "reasonable". You responded with insinuations about my inappropriate "interest" in Mattisse. What am I supposed to conclude? Underneath your superficial placation, you think I'm the problem for bringing you a concern about your mentee - something which you had repeatedly asked people to do.

I don't understand your offense at the "concrete follow-up"; I simply meant that I was bringing you an actual situation for discussion, as opposed to a hypothetical - hence "concrete". And it was simply a "follow-up" to my earlier questions. I'm increasingly finding myself in the long line of people who consider this mentorship a major disappointment. If anything, it seems that Mattisse is modifying your behavior, rather than vice-versa. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This guy has just gone to the top of Abd's mentors list. What a hoot that will be! Although I used to recommend mentorship, I've seen it become enablership far to often to think it's a useful concept in its current form. Verbal chat 05:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell and SilkTork: I hope you don't mind me commenting here. I think this is one of those situations where you would be getting along just fine if you were communicating in person, where there are smiles, handshakes, tone of voice, etc. As I see it, you're both well-intentioned and responding to the situation you find yourself in as best you can. I can, if you're interested, go into more detail about where I see misunderstandings arising in this particular situation, though I may not be able to respond until next weekend. Or maybe it's best to just forget about it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another!

here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And its getting very out of hand! Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do rather resent being called "Dpeterson" and a meat puppet. At some point I would hope that "fainites" would be called upon to prove these suppositions about my identity. I am very much my own person.

I shall prepare DETAILED documentation of the litigation, so as to comply with the "living persons" standards.

Didacticderivative (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be ideal. Please carefully review our policy on biographical material to get a good idea of appropriate sourcing, and to get an idea of why your earlier edits were reverted. MastCell ^Talk 02:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And againFainites ^barleyscribs 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And probably

all of which are still editing ... I'm afraid to ask ... Antandrus (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tkguy and asian fetish articles

Would this be a violation of the 1RR rule: [7], [8]?--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If that didn't, this will [9], [10], and a third revert on [11].--Crossmr (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AMA Accusations and editor harassment

Whenever you want to focus on content and not on contributors, let me know. Waiting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, you have dug yourself an exceedingly deep hole. If you want to start climbing out by collaborating in a civil manner and discussing actual, specific improvements to the article, then I'm listening. Let's do that on the article talk page, rather than here, so that other interested editors can participate as well. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, Focus on Content , you came to my talk page to discuss matters. I can make the same statement about your actions and hole digging. I am all about civility and whenever you want to start let me know. I have been asking to Focus on Content for quite sometime, your comment about digging holes supports my claim that my requests to Focus on Content are still being ignored. I have chosen to step away from this debate and focus on making contributions, I think most civil resolution would be to end the discussion.--0pen$0urce (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your question

... has a reply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your final point -- about "evad(ing) the core question" -- is deeply ironic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are needed!

2009 flu pandemic just passed GAC. I'm looking to nominate it for FAC, but would like somebody with talent in writing medical articles to have a look first so I don't embarrass myself. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is always nice to feel needed. :) That said, this isn't a great time for me. I'm substantially winding down my participation here, for a variety of reasons, so I can't promise to help - as worthy as the cause is. You might want to check in at WP:MED, or go straight to TimVickers (talk · contribs), WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs), Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs), maybe Casliber (talk · contribs), or some combination of the above. Sorry I can't be of more help, and good luck. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

FWD: YOU MUST PASS THIS ON TO TEN PEOPLE

Passing on a delightful piece of spam I got.--Tznkai (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  03:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the New Yorker cartoon where the CEO says: "We need to stall this proposal to death. Give it to one of our action committees"? I hope something good comes out of this iteration, but I'm not really in the mood for another round of aimless brainstorming, so I'll wait to see how it evolves. I have two simple but pressing issues:

1. Kill the concept of admin recall; it's a good idea in theory, but a bad joke in its implementation.
2. Retake RfA and prioritize maturity and level-headedness over edit-count-by-namespace. Anyone who responds to Q3 by saying: "I've never really been in a conflict on Wikipedia" should be automatically disqualified. If they've really never been in a conflict, then they're a complete unknown in terms of how they'll act and react as an admin (that's bad). More likely, they have been in a conflict, but can't be bothered to mention it. Lack of self-awareness is even worse, though it seems to be a dominant trait around these parts.

Hey, maybe I am interested in aimless brainstorming after all... :) MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. No. 2 is one of the best comments I've seen on RFA, in general, in a long time. (No 1 is good too; "admin recall" reminds me of phony advertising and campaign promises.)

In general, I think we underemphasize maturity and professionalism just about everywhere on this massive and highly-visible project (what are we, like the sixth-most visited website on the planet)? Needs to be more discussion about this. I think at least one good conflict should be required before running for admin. How else would we know how someone would behave under duress? Anyway, just a drive-by comment from one of the usual talk page stalkers around this place. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have considered voting along these lines... like, I want to see one example of a candidate successfully handling a heated situation or conflict before I'll support them. But then I can't quite bring myself to oppose simply because people haven't been in a fight here, and besides, knowing the dominant crowd at RfA, I'd probably quickly find myself hounded for my "inappopriate" opposes until I said uncle. MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, #2 is really good. You shouldn't bow to "the dominant crowd", see where "bathrobe cabal"s and the like get us. And I should pay more attention to RfAs. Disclaimer: was pushed into agreeing to nomination for admin as am ancient, if not mature, am relaxed and fairly slothful if not exactly level-headed, and had already dealt with a conflict in my usual way. Now must try to resolve the conflict between Wikisloth and duty to join in those tedious RfA disucssions. Will sleep on that. . dave souza, talk 08:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the "bathrobe cabal" - I didn't really have that group in mind, and I've always found GlassCobra and Jayron32 to be excellent and clueful admins, which makes the current situation doubly unfortunate. Obviously, they fucked up to varying degrees, but I think it would be a loss for Wikipedia to have them lose their admin bits, because balanced against that one fuckup is a lot of good work. On the other hand, I do think the atmosphere at RfA in general precludes, or at least mitigates against, a thoughtful assessment of someone's potential as an admin. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I respect your judgement on that, and appreciate GlassCobra's slightly belated acceptance of the gravity of the fuckup and promise not to do the same again. Unfortunately, those who are well entrenched and feel they hold a powerful position can be quite aggressive in responding to a lack of support for their favoured candidate.[12][13][14] I've avoided suggesting sanctions, as there has been a wide range of degrees of fuckup varying from silent irresponsibility with mitigating circumstances to all out defiance of community ethical standards. A measured response is needed, but in the more egregious instances it still needs to be more than a slap on the wrist and must avoid any implied hint or implication that it'd be ok to do it again a bit more carefully. Nor do I have an instant answer for ending intimidation at RfA: maybe I'll try to get involved more often and jump hard on over the top demands from supporters, but there should still be room for civil requests for clarification of concerns about candidates. . . dave souza, talk 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the aggressive badgering of opposers is way out of hand. A nonsensical rationale will stand out on its own; it's only worth commenting to try to convince someone, not to point out what an idiot they are. Actually, I have a nomination under preparation for someone who I think would make an excellent admin, so we'll see how it goes. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sonds promising, must try to watch out for that. Meanwhile I'm struggling to get Haeckel into line, at least in draft. That's supposed to be the fun part of this game! . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been in conflict before numerous times, but I was always on the right side of policy and had serious back up like you guys so I don't know how that might effect a hypothetical run. I tend to avoid the free-for-all areas like fiction, games and sports so maybe I don't even know what a real wikiwar is like... Auntie E. 01:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

In the past you have expressed a very level-headed approach to this article. There has been a lenghty discussion 9argument) just in the past few days, leading to page protection. I have participated in this discussion but not much, in the past few days, so I don't know what specifically led to the protection. Unimportant. What is important in my mind is the potential for you to review the last few day's talk and identify key issues in content or content politics that you either can clarify, or where you may ask a question that might help antagonistic parties clarify the issue and move towards some way of collaborating smoothly. In any event I think your assessment at this juncture would be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but I'm going to decline the invitation at this point. I'm cutting back dramatically on my participation here, and this is exactly the sort of thing that led me to that decision. MastCell ^Talk 02:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

TFA

MC, would you be able to add Water flouridation to your watchlist? It seems to be an anti-science magnet. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. I recently removed all of the anti-science magnets from my watchlist. Unfortunately, that left me with 0 pages to watch. So I'll add water fluoridation. I've even got just the userbox for the situation. MastCell ^Talk 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Where can I get me some of them anti-science magnets? Scientists are trying to control my brain. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, right? Like with this undeniably catchy propaganda by a couple of SPOV-pushers. Clearly IDCab wannabes. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, they's the ones. They been spying on me from the outlet by the light switch. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Hi, after not receiving a reply on the talk page for this article I undid your change. There were a number of edits involved, nearly all of them simple grammatical errors corrected (e.g. we don't say 'England refers to a country' but 'England is a country'). Feel free to undo any but can you please address them individually instead of en bloc, thanks.The Rationalist (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're trying to improve the article, but it looks like a number of other editors (not just me) aren't enthused about the wording you've proposed. I'd suggest working it through on the article talk page; you're easily at three reverts, if not more. The editors in question will certainly listen to reason. MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Milomedes

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but I'm fine with whatever you guys decide. I'll stay out of this one. MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh Dearie dearie me

Here. This linked to an attack blog attacking the usual victims - and purported to contain a post by me!! There has been an exponential proliferation of these attack blogs recently. I can only assume there aren't many patients in the AT world. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected the article again. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Rendered superfluous on my own talk page. :P MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Think of it as acolytes walking in your footsteps /\.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong diff?

[15] You've added the diff to the old "let's ban sarcasm" discussion on Vassyana's page, suggesting it was an example not-quite-your-finest-moment. I think you may have intended to add something else. Risker (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How right you are. I've fixed it - thanks for the heads-up. Of course, this means that somewhere else, I've mistakenly placed my talkpage diff when I meant to reference the conversation about banning sarcasm... I think I'm just about ready for the Wikipedia Retirement Home. MastCell ^Talk 02:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal silver

Now if I was really was a Colloidal Silver Promoter I'd be rubbing my hands together over this impending train wreck. All that stuff about argyria, coma, FDA, TGA, etc is going to be shoved into a new article that no-one will read. Beautiful! DHawker (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that very many people were reading the old article. Always nice to hear from you, though. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

After seeing the latest edits I think I'm glad I'm banned. I wouldn't know where to start. DHawker (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DHawker, you were topic banned? Then why were you commenting at AN/I? An article ban is local, while a topic ban applies to all of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know it extended that far. The ban was never explained, not even a link was provided.DHawker (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you know. A topic ban applies to all of Wikipedia, including your own userspace, excepting for discussing the ban itself, in which case it would be impossible to not mention the subject tangentially. Be careful of users who deliberately or inadvertently might get you involved in discussions on the subject itself. Once the ban is over, you're welcome to discuss the subject, but with more care. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It'll never 'be over'. (The ban I mean. Its permanent.) DHawker (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Here Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Same old.... Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kabat strikes again!

FYI: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7641/ Yilloslime ^T_C 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Heartland Institute

The IP is Scibaby. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for protecting. It started to get annoying. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ABC peer review

Hi Mastcell, I'm planning to start a peer review of the ABC hypothesis article sometime this month/year. My current notes are here. Just wondering about your thoughts or opinions on that notion. - RoyBoy 06:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought you'd be interested

I brought this up a while ago, and finally done something about it. Notice the lack of adjectives like "great", "good", "representative", "factual" or "well-referenced". Tah-dah! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent

Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (while keeping in mind excessive cross-posting below). For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion.

The canvassing you are accusing me of is just that... a friendly notice to someone who has been involved in the article in the past, and an attempt to improve rather than to influence a discussion.

I am confounded by the fact that you cannot see the difference, and the fact that you are OBVIOUSLY personally attacking me. May I ask why? Neuromancer (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your posts fell on the wrong side of WP:CANVASS in at least two domains - the message was biased, and the audience you chose was partisan. I don't think I'm the only person to notice that, or to find your behavior inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 03:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your question

I'm curious as to why you (Mister Hospodar) conclude that everyone who disagrees with you (that is, everyone you've encountered on Wikipedia thus far) must be part of a nefarious conspiracy, and why they must be "paid" by their "bosses" to "police" these articles. Leaving aside the various behavioral policies violated by such repetitive accusations, do you think alternate explanations are possible, if not likely? For example, is it possible that people edit these articles out of a desire to create a serious, respectable reference work - one that treats discredited claims honestly as discredited claims, rather creating a false impression of ongoing scientific debate? Could these nefarious editors possibly be motivated to contribute their free time to ensure that potentially important medical information here accurately reflects the knowledge of scholars and experts in the field? MastCell Talk 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In reply to the above question, I will state that NO, there is no other possible explanation for editors who take down within 30 minutes any edits that disagree with their agenda without considering the logic or validity of these edits, many of which edits greatly improve the articles in question; whose arguments funnel always into the same tired arguments and bullying, all of which adhere to a fixed political agenda and specific types of censorship; who are on call seemingly 24 hours a day for years to revert any edit which they think is damning to their agenda; who spend countless hours creating specious, illogical arguments and trying the time-worn tactic of invalidating their "opponents" with name-calling and fringe accusations; who ridicule and demean everyone, including established scientists, who disagree with their agenda; who are clearly not clever or informed enough to be operating on their own, say, as AIDS scientists or researchers who merely want to help the world with their knowledge; and who police a number of pages all related to the concerns of pharmaceutical companies, slamming alternative therapies and spreading disinformation about diseases. If your bosses at big pharma are reading this, they should know that you're not doing a very good job of hiding any of this. Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems proven to me. MastCell, where's my November nefarious conspiracy check? Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - thanks to the current economic downturn, you and I are going to have to suppress The Truth pro bono for awhile. As to Mister Hospodar, his response does actually answer my question - not the answer I was hoping for, but the one I was expecting. Peace. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. If you bump into that guy under a different username please drop me a note. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles on user pages

Isn't copying deleted/soon-to-be-deleted articles onto your userpage against the rules? (I'm not accusing you, btw!) Verbal chat 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to me? Please allow the AfD process to complete before blanking an article. As far as my user page goes, it's mine, and I can display what I like there. Neuromancer (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:USER and WP:WEBHOST. In fact WP:USER#Copies of other pages is quite clear. Verbal chat 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am using it a sandbox. I am performing further research, and at some point in the near future plan to integrate it into various sections within HIV AIDS denialism HIV test etc. Neuromancer (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If you want to use it as a sandbox for a finite period of time, that's reasonable. I assume that if you're planning to integrate it into existing articles, you plan to seek input and consensus from other editors of those articles? MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am! Added potentially controversial information to the articles without consensus will not do any good for the Wiki, not to mention they would be reverted in a matter of minutes. No, I fully plan on slowly integrating information. Take a look for example at paragraph four of the HIV lead, which was recently updated per my recommendations in HIV talk. Neuromancer (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Discovery and development of CCR5 receptor antagonists

A rather large new article with a non-standard name. Might be up your street. Probably needs a rename at the very least. Verbal chat 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See here for more info. Sasata (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello, MastCell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. Thank you.

Sorry, MastCell, I recognise you're more patient than I and ANI might not have been your choice of how to discuss the issue. I just feel the user's motivations and tactics have been made sufficiently clear and this has gone on long enough. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, I haven't been impressed with the community's ability to identify and deal effectively with this sort of agenda-driven editing. For that reason, I prefer to handle it more simply, as outlined here. Eventually, people who are here to push that sort of agenda eventually realize that this isn't the venue, and it's not going to work. Ideally, they come to that realization on their own and move on to more appropriate venues. Blocks, bans, and sanctions are a reasonable fallback option, but then the person typically ends up with the belief that they were "censored" or treated unfairly, rather than realizing that they were here for the wrong reasons in the first place.

But whatever; I was kicking around whether the annoyance of dealing with this nonsense rose to the level of rolling the dice in an AN/I crapshoot. I left a few diffs there expressing my view, and I'll leave it at that for now. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)