User talk:MastCell/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. 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 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 →

Contents

Fred Singer Page

With all due respect I still have an outstanding objection to the Newsweek source on WP:BLP/N as constituting a conflict of interest. It does not. Nor does that source indicate that Singer was actually even at the meeting.

As for the Monbiot piece my agreement on WP:BLP/N was conditional on my being able to characterize Mondiot's position and motives which I have tried to do in a good faith way. A review of the pages history will show that those who want the Monbiot piece in this section are refusing to allow me to introduce a modest piece of text to that effect which is clearly already part of the Monbiot BLP, so it should be considered unbiased on my part.

I will update my points on WP:BLP/N to reflect this action on their part.

--GoRight 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. I am considering my position here given the revised title of the section. I'll get back to you.
--GoRight 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you changed the title of the section to remove the allegation of a conflict of interest, and given that the GW section contained Monbiot's criticism within that section, I moved both of these quotes into their respective sections, labeled them as criticism, and removed the empty section. This improves the article because the criticism is presented within the context of what it is discussing. Is this acceptable to you? --GoRight 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's discuss this on the article talk page to centralize things where other editors will notice them. MastCell Talk 05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

We allow this to be an article? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's actually an excellent example of the limitations of Wikipedia. There really is some notable controversy over mandatory vaccination. There are plenty of sources available to cover it neutrally and well, and to discuss relevant aspects like the history of resistance to vaccination and the debate over public health vs. individual liberties. But instead, the article is a magnet for fringe/psuedoscience POV-pushers who insist that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a reliable medical source which "rebuts" the Cochrane Library. Creating something encyclopedic on the topic is a discouraging problem. But: it's actually been cleaned up remarkably from its earlier state; there's an ongoing effort to cleanse the Augean Stables that are Wikipedia's articles on vaccination and autism. User:Eubulides and User:SandyGeorgia are putting in a lot of work and deserve a Medal of Honor for their hard work; any help would be welcome. I do think it's a fair topic for an article, though - this is probably one of those fringe views that's received enough mainstream coverage/rebuttal to be notable under WP:FRINGE. MastCell Talk 05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I respect that there are valid reasons to not get vaccinated. I also respect that a great article could be written about these reasons. But the whole crap about autism and such is scaring people--pertussis is on the rise because of this kind of thinking. But of course, people believe that aliens visit from distant galaxies.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and in an ideal world we could cover both the vaccine-autism concept and alien visitation in a reasonable, neutral way. It's theoretically very easy, since there are an abundance of good sources characterizing the various viewpoints. But fringe theories tend to be over-represented on Wikipedia, both in terms of number of adherents and in terms of their single-minded determination. I can name a half-dozen accounts dedicated primarily to advancing vaccination-related fringe theories, and another half-dozen dedicated to arguing that secondhand smoke is harmless. There are few or no correspondingly, er, dedicated accounts arguing a mainstream position on specific issues. This creates an artificial view of how popular or well-supported these fringe theories are, since their representation on Wikipedia far outweighs their representation in the real world. But I'm sure you already knew all this - it's just a problem that seems somewhat intractable, so I thought I'd spell it out. MastCell Talk 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, and this is why I blow a gasket every week. People come to Wikipedia as if this place speaks the TRUTH!!!!! Of course, science, being nuanced and theoretical, doesn't even know how to spell truth. But those who espouse those fringe theories write as if it is the truth, and people believe it. What if 10 people decide to not vaccinate their kids because of what is written here? Who helps those kids? I guess I've got be passionate about it, because it's scary if no one is. Well, I guess I'm taking the viewpoint that I have to win one battle at a time. I rewrote Herpes zoster because a lot of BS alternative crap floated in there. But I wonder how many articles have not been cleaned up, and people are making medical choices based on what they read here. Sigh. Of course, then I watch over articles in Evolution and Creationism, extinction events and other locations. All of them give me heartburn. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That article truly is a mess. I'd jump in but I would expect that would be suicide :-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Make sure your vaccinations are up to date before travelling there!....;-) It's one of the most contentious topics in alternative medicine, and one of the most dangerous in real life. What's worst is that it is the children who pay the price. It's a very emotional topic. -- Fyslee / talk 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On a philosophical note, I've always been puzzled that for all of modern medicine's failings, the real vitriol and denialism is reserved for the interventions that have been most remarkably successful. If I were to name 3 or 4 of the greatest triumphs of modern medicine, in terms of a beneficial impact on overall public health, they would be: vaccination; the identification of HIV as the cause of AIDS and the development of extraordinarily effective treatments in a remarkably short time frame; prevention of cardiovascular disease through the identification and modification of risk factors; and coordinated anti-smoking efforts which have dramatically dropped the rate of new lung cancers and even brought down the overall cancer rate. Yet each of these areas attracts a dedicated hard core of contrarians (nowhere more so than at Wikipedia). Leaving aside the vaccination issue, look at AIDS reappraisal, lipid hypothesis/THINCS, and passive smoking (mind you, all have dramatically improved in terms of WP:WEIGHT during the time I've watched them, though I can't take too much credit for that). It's one of those things; I'm sure there's a clear, simple sociological explanation for it, but I haven't figured it out yet. MastCell Talk 07:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is both philosophical and political. Alternative medicine isn't just a number of different therapies and theories, it is also a culture where anti-science, anti-medical, and anti-authoritarian sentiments are very actively promoted. Conspiracy theories are rampant, and any lie or distortion is considered allowable. With a total distrust of reliable sources of information, one finds editors here who are single purpose accounts seemingly drawn only to nonsensical and dangerous ideas. They reject common sense and avoid articles where it predominates. It's a weird phenomena and should not be underestimated since many prominent persons actively whip up the passions of these people for their own profit, and the profits are enormous, really, really, huge. Kevin Trudeau and Joseph Mercola come to mind. There are many others. Non-science and nonsense are pretty much synonymous in that world. At the same time many people in that world are more moderate and limit their interests to lifestyle changes and sensible living habits. Hey, that's great, and they are actually just following what science and medicine has discovered and is teaching. -- Fyslee / talk 07:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree; I think many areas of alternative medicine are actually quite rational, and in any case they are often truly complementary in that they address areas traditionally overlooked by mainstream medicine. Those areas are obviously meaningful to a lot of people, as the popularity of alternative medicine attests. I think it's also a useful indication of the areas where mainstream medicine is failing to meet peoples' needs. I've been around long enough to know that there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy; after all, you can hardly go a day in the clinic without seeing something that defies textbook medical explanation.
That said, there is certainly a continuum of alt-med which encompasses an awful lot of snake oil. There's a lot of money to be made and practically no regulation, which is a bad combination. And I do have very little patience for people who rail at Big Pharma (which, for all its nefarious deeds, is at least on some level accountable, subject to regulation, and required to prove its products actually work before selling them) and then turn around and hawk their utterly unregulated supplement blend. MastCell Talk 07:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well stated, Mastcell. I couldn't agree more.. on all points. I think vaccination is one of those concepts that became a symbol of the pharmaceutical approach back in the days when competing methods were all vying to be the nations caretakers. It became a lightening rod for those who supported and those against the concept of medications made from 'germs' that were meant to be used on the healthy. There had to be a huge amount of trust involved, or blind faith. I imagine it wouldn't have made it too far without government support. Ultimately, the problem was that to protect the public, it required that those who did not want to participate had to 'for the good of the community, adding another 'freedom of choice' issue to the mix. It was a recipe for resistance. I suspect that the vaccination wars were hard fought on both sides and there were lots of casualties with lingering hard feelings that those that defend probably don't even understand, but just continue to repeat. The resistance almost dissappeared after small pox was eradicated - mostly because they stopped making people get it - until the advent of the flu and chicken pox vaccines and now of course, the human papillomavirus. There must still be an element of disbelief that leads to distrust. The challenge is to break through the disbelief. Easier said than done, but needs to come through in the article. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit to the William Connolley vanity page

My edit to William Connolley's page wasn't sourced by anyone other than William Connolley himself, when he edited it. So you are wrong (and apparently not entirely truthful). --71.232.157.145 07:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've notified this editor that I would seek an immediate and permanent ban if s/he kept up this kind of thing which we've seen before - making attack edits on Wikipedia in pursuit of an intra-Wiki dispute. Obviously the warning has done no good, so I'd like to request that you impose the appropriate block. Having been through this kind of thing myself, I don't believe that actions like this deserve second chances. Rather, let's take note of the IP and writing style to reimpose the block if this person turns up again. Best wishes JQ 12:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AIT Talk Page

Since you offered advice earlier I would like to take the opportunity to ask for some more. If you review the recent discussions on the AIT Talk page regarding Steven Milloy and a "vote" I proposed to gauge the relative size of the factions on either side of the issue. I would appreciate any advice you would offer on how best to proceed. I believe that the behavior of the other editors with respect to this vote speaks volumes regarding their intent to negotiate in good faith on this topic. As I clearly state the vote is non-binding and the outcome will only be used to determine whether mediation would be a reasonable next step. --GoRight 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty strong ethic on Wikipedia that "voting is evil", or, more accurately, that polling is not a substitute for discussion. I think that's what you're running up against, though it probably could have been phrased a bit more helpfully since it's hardly intuitive. It's fine to take a straw poll if it's unclear where certain editors stand, but even that can raise a few hackles. Anyhow, I think the "good" news is that it's reasonably clear where particular editors stand, and if you're interested in pursuing it then dispute resolution steps (like soliciting outside input via request for comment or the reliable sources noticeboard) would be a reasonable next step. MastCell Talk 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --GoRight 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


I would like to draw your attention to an edit war that occurred on the An Inconvenient Truth talk page today. Note that two of the users involved were in a group from an edit war over an in-line link to a category page. Their actions on the AIT talk page amount to censorship, IMHO, and if they persist I wish to escalate the matter. I have contacted each of the three on their talk pages concerning this matter and asked that they stop censoring the dialog there.

Any assistance or advice on how to proceed would be appreciated.

--GoRight (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

new template?

I haven't seen this template before; where did you find it? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's {{spam-warn-deletion}}; there is also {{nn-warn-deletion}} for A7 deletions. They're better than the "warning" tags since they make clear that the article has actually been deleted. I don't think they exist for the other speedy categories, though. Can't remember how I discovered them... old age and all. MastCell Talk 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a few more here: Category:CSD warning templates. MastCell Talk 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Marquay Love

Love is still with the Dolphins. I will re-create the page.►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let me know if you'd rather I restore the deleted version. MastCell Talk 16:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's no big deal, already done. I won't re-create Christopher Vedder though, you were right to delete it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Evidence storage

I find myself in disagreement with your block of the Evidence storage account, for reasons I have explained at User talk:Evidence storage. I would appreciate your comments there. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I've commented there. MastCell Talk 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeremythedgehog (Sonicrules) sock

This user you blocked is actually a sock of User:Sonicrules2, and he has created yet another account, and has already made a threating and disruptive edit. User:Crashofthetitans, is the new sock, please see that he is dealt with. Thanks. Atomic Religione (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. MastCell Talk 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Userfy an article for me, please?

MastCell, could you please userfy the article "Highland Capital Partners" that you deleted? It had an expired PROD and you deleted it "03:55, 15 November 2007". Just drop it into some subpage of mine. I just want to see how different the remake is. Also, can you tell me the user that created the original page? Thank you. —ScouterSig 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Done - replied on your talk page. MastCell Talk 01:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Metformin

Excellent, thank you :) Your copyedits helped significantly, by the way—amazing how easy it is to lose one's strategic distance. Feel free to jump in any time (and I mean it). Thanks again, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chido6d

Yeah, you're right. Long week and I'd just had enough of his rubbish - but you're right: thanks. Nmg20 (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

External links (on Life Extension)

My link on "Guaranteed Human Life Extension" is not SPAM. It is a method to advance medical research by convincing people to join folding@home. IMHO it is the only method of "human life extension" that will really work. I've read many books and articles on other forms of "life extension" and they are all just wishful thinking. --Neilrieck (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a venue to sign people up for a particular approach to life extension which you're convinced will work. MastCell Talk 00:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I replaced the neutrality dispute tag on Post-Abortion Syndrome as it certainly applies and there are many complaints from others on the discussion page. I've added an additional complaint of my own to the end of the discussion page....just to make you happy.

This article has been so "purged" and is so biased that a good faith effort will take months of re-writing. In the mean time, readers deserve to know that it is much disputed and should be warned to take it with a grain of salt and perhaps read the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A "good-faith effort" starts with you leaving behind the constant personal attacks and accusations of malice and trying to achieve consensus instead. You're not there yet, by a long shot. MastCell Talk 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ABC hypothesis

I'm calling on you, not in any official capacity, but as another editor. The situation on the Talk:Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis page is getting tense. Another opinion would be greatly appreciated. Phyesalis (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put a word in on the article talk page. MastCell Talk 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. I hope you don't mind how I characterized your contributions/position over at the Dr's mess. I was trying not to have it all fall on you. Am I making sense? Again, thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, no problem. I'll leave a note over there as well. MastCell Talk 05:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lynn Margulis

I'm interested in learning how better to source my contributions from last week to the Lynn Margulis biography (you deleted my additions). Lynn Margulis has herself made statements supporting 9-11 conspiracy theories and denying that HIV causes AIDS. Does the fact that she has made these statements on extremist websites and other venues rule out any mention of her views on these issues? If so, some of her comments on HIV and AIDS were made by her in an internet roundtable discussion hosted by ScienceBlogs, a widely-read network of weblogs hosted by active scientists. Why is this source not permitted? It doesn't seem extremist to me, and Lynn Margulis was a participant; these were her words. Thank you. naturalhygiene —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalhygiene (talk • contribs) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing needs to be very solid to attribute controversial opinions to living people; acceptable sources are described in more detail in the biographies of living persons policy (apologies if you've already read it). The 9/11 source is probably OK - at least, I don't have a major problem with it. As to AIDS denialism, the sources are pretty suspect. The AIDS-denial blog is a patently unreliable source, particularly for items dealing with a living person. The "List of rethinkers" is notoriously padded and inaccurate, and contains a number of names of people who no longer subscribe to AIDS denialism, if they ever did - again, not a reliable source for a biographical article. The final comment is also a blog comment post, which is pretty much unacceptable for a biographical article. The fact that, as you wrote, these comments have led some to wonder whether Margulis has been a victim of identity theft underscore why we should not incorporate this material of questionable provenance into the encyclopedia. Mind you, I think the likelihood is that these comments really were made by Margulis, but without better sourcing I think it would be irresponsible to put them into a Wikipedia article (after all, the standard here is verifiability, not "truth"). I hope that's a helpful explanation of where I'm coming from. MastCell Talk 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your help at Chronic fatigue syndrome

Talk about a disease that attracts the snake oil nutjobs. This edit bothers me a lot. I looked over the two justifying references, and they fail on the following principles: one is a case study that rarely can be used for any purpose, and both are low on the list of reliable journals. Referencing my talk page discussion recently, these articles are the kind that prove nothing. I can use your help, or I'm going to be leaving snarky edit summaries. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My brief experience with ME/CFS is that there are a lot of single-purpose accounts with agendas on the loose. I don't really have the energy to get deeply involved with that sort of thing on a topic on which I'm not deeply committed. I did leave a talk-page comment, though I believe it was on an unrelated issue. I think it's totally fine to say that a lot of people with CFS use alternative medicine, acupuncture, etc. The problem is with claiming these are "effective" without citing better evidence. If there is a major problem with POV etc. then you may want to request outside input from the clinical medicine WikiProject. MastCell Talk 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you pick and choose your battles. You take on the ones where SPOV doesn't attract trolls. But if we keep surrendering ground to these types, we'll have nothing. I wish I were more like you on these points. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Picking your battles is the only way to go. There are enough areas on the encyclopedia where problems will find you... there's really no need to go out looking for trouble. I try to limit the number of controversial articles I'm involved in at any one time, for my own sanity. It's an approach I'd highly recommend, to anyone. MastCell Talk 05:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jinxmchue

Can you deal with the IPs? I've had quite enough drama over that for one week. Adam Cuerden talk 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out. I think the only relevance of the named account is that this is a user with a history of tendentious editing and edit-warring, and not a run-of-the-mill brand-new anonymous IP. That may have some bearing on the sequence of events. MastCell Talk 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Direct and indirect sourcing

Hi. Thanks for your discussion about how to write about a case where "A says that B said X". I'm still looking for a guideline, but for now I'm satisfied to leave it something like "A claims X" or "According to A, B said X".

I guess you know I'm talking about that UN lady who used to manage The Washington Times and her claim that AP called the Times the "third most quoted newspaper". Come to think of it, Arnaud de Borchgrave said something similar about the BBC quoting the Times every hour on the hour.

The intriguing part for me is distinguishing between self-aggrandizing claims and legitimate description. --Uncle Ed 15:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I have to admit I didn't know who the quotation source was until I read the Wikipedia article, so I really do learn something every day here. I don't feel especially strongly about it, but my preference would be to attribute the claim directly unless/until a third-party (extra-Times) source is verified, for the reasons you mention above. MastCell Talk 06:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
  4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
  5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. If you can get your answers in as soon as possible, I'll try to ensure that they're in the candidate guide as quickly as I can -- hopefully before the elections start. Thanks, Ral315 » 23:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Moulton Request for Arbitration

There is a current Request for Arbitration, to which you are a listed party, regarding Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The Request can be found at this section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 17:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell Talk 17:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your name in evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Adam's recent blocking history is spotty, the subsection on Whig. In a "normal case" I'd say that what I mention is not significant, but an arbitrator filed this case, recused, and is on a tear about inadequate review of blocks, so I make no predictions. GRBerry 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Now I know whom to blame when I'm desysopped. :) MastCell Talk 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

You are engaged in an edit war at David Reardon. Let's both respect 3RR. See my notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to do so. I left the note only to ensure that you were aware of the WP:3RR policy. At this point, outside opinions may be useful as we don't appear to be making headway. MastCell Talk 04:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct. I'm sorry that this message is so late; I wasn't aware about your nomination when I sent out these messages.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table.

I used the template Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table/cand to make it easier to enter the values in the table. I'm sorry that I didn't get around to entering all values, I will do that in about 21 hours if you don't get around to it. — Sebastian 09:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page as of 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

Thanks!

Hey thanks for protecting the Francis Drake article. I requested protection a couple months ago and was told there wasn't enough vandalism. What actually constitutes as enough for protection? Thanks again! Deflagro C/T 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Honest answer? Depends on the admin reviewing the request. For me, if there's only two or three incidents a day, that's usually not enough (so long as the page is watched and the vandalism is being reverted). More than that usually does it for me. MastCell Talk 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

See the personal attack here. As an uninvolved admin, can you help out? Guido has gone batty with his attacks on editors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And then there's this outstanding edit. You know I don't care about civility, but personal attacks, I take umbrage. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really "uninvolved" in this case; I've commented at Simon Wessely and had some interaction with Guido den Broeder in the past. Sorry not to be of more help; I will try to look in on chronic fatigue syndrome, but I don't think I'm suitably uninvolved to act as an administrator in this situation. MastCell Talk 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR allegation

I would appreciate it if you would provide the "diffs" to support your allegation. Thank you. Chido6d (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What 3RR allegation are you talking about? MastCell Talk 04:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Albanian Air Force

Hi i would like to know where User:77.242.24.253 & User:Noclador are getting these claims and presenting them as facts with no source what so ever on the current flying status of the aircraft in the Albanian air force & User:Noclador for some reason claims I'm committing vandalism and removing User:217.24.241.70 edits when in fact I did not touch any thing he added and does not conflict with any of his edits as you can see on the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanian_Air_Force&diff=177514353&oldid=177443334 can you please try to see why User:Noclador is reverting my posts for no reason with no source and tell him to provide a source and discuss his as he is not willing to discuss with me about it.

User:80.80.161.147 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Once more it's obviously Gon4z... Yesterday he used an IP of the range 80.80.1XX to edit Albanian Airforce again- reason: "removed nationalistic propaganda that has not been sourced and are redicilous claims". Today he uses another IP of the range 80.80.1XX to copy copyvio material into User talk:Shqipe breznica (original text) and than comes straight for you to complain - because he claims I'm "not willing to discuss with him about it." He didn't try to discuss anything and as we know, with user:Gon4z it is useless to discuss... so, that's all & as usual: revert and ignore. --noclador (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the Albanian Air Force page to slow things down. MastCell Talk 17:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-protection. I will keep an eye out for suspicious edtis to the other obvious targets: Military of Albania, Albanian Joint Forces Command, Albanian Naval Defense Forces. --noclador (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Grawp:

Hi there! I must seem like a total idiot, but I saw your comment of FFS on User:Clone 0's talk page and was wondering if I'd done something wrong? (This is in regard to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Grawp) That was my first time I'd been involved with any sockpuppet case and I left a couple of questions at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Grawp - You seem to know what you're talking about so would it be too much to ask if you just explain to me what I'm not getting; I need to learn from my mistakes etc so I can do better next time. If you can't that's okay. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, you didn't do anything wrong. That was just my reaction to the silliness on Clone0's talk page, nothing to do with you. I'm sorry to give you that impression. You did fine. I don't think you made any mistakes. It's a good idea to check the block log before filing the SSP report, because sometimes the suspected socks are already indefinitely blocked and you can save yourself the time spent gathering evidence and filing the report. You did fine - sorry to give you the impression that my edit summary was directed towards you. Happy editing. MastCell Talk 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay! Yeah, I assumed he wasn't blocked because he made an edit, but forgot even indef's can edit their talk page. Thanks for the help! :) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The only other thing I was curious about was whether he needed to be reblocked with a different rationale such as "sock puppet of Grawp" or something rather than just "vandalism only account" which doesn't reflect the whole situtation...? And whether there should be a sign stating that Clone 0 is a sock puppet of Grawp on Clone's user page? Sorry for the questions - I'm gearing up for an RfA in a few months and need all the experience I can muster. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with doing that, but it's generally not necessary. Unless there's a significant movement to unblock the editor, it doesn't really matter too much whether the stated block rationale is "vandalism-only" or "disruptive sock" (assuming both are accurate descriptors). It is a good idea to tag Clone0's page with a sockpuppet template, though - it helps keep track of the socks of a particular editor. MastCell Talk 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Kewl. Thanks a lot for the help. I've changed the template (Assuming I was supposed to change it, not just add another template) and I'm enlightened by your teachings master (cell). ;) Cheers and thanks a lot! Spawn Man Review Me! 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Good luck with your editor review and RfA. MastCell Talk 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude

Your "heresy" speech on AIDS reappraisal completely rocks. I'm going to borrow from it in future disputes :)! - Nunh-huh 01:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I must be getting more quotable in my old age... that's the second time in a month I've had the honor. I should really stop releasing these under GFDL if there's a market for them... :) MastCell Talk 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mifepristone and Mifegyne History

I appreciate your input and editorial critique of the following paragraph you've previously deleted. It was, and still is, germane to understanding the history of mifipristone. A similar paragraph was mistakenly placed in the "Controversy" subsection, when it should have been included under "History". You deleted it. I'm a novice Wikipedia contributor and I welcome all suggestions, questions, critique, or help in editing this contribution. Thanks for your input. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. As others have mentioned, it might be worthwhile to take a little time to look at other medical articles on Wikipedia and get a sense of where the bar is for the sources we use. According to our policy on neutral point of view, we attempt to provide balanced coverage of a topic that weights available sources appropriately and reflects a balance of published opinion. Particularly on a topic like mifepristone, there is such a large volume of peer-reviewed literature and commentary available that a single letter to the editor from 16 years ago probably falls below the bar for inclusion. As a side issue, as you are the author of the letter in question, our conflict of interest guidelines suggest that you propose its inclusion on the talk page, but be mindful of your position as an involved party. It's best not to personally continue inserting a reference to a letter you authored when there is not yet consensus as to how, and whether, to utilize it as a source. MastCell Talk 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this allowed?!

I ran across this and I thought this wasn't allowed [1] Isn't this considered convassing? Plus the request states that any altmeds are welomed to comment. I am learning policies still and this just doesn't look right. --CrohnieGalTalk 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's not as bad as Oldspammer's last round of canvassing ([2]), so I figured I wouldn't make a big deal of it. He's a bit incorrigible, but at least this is limited to only 2 other (carefully selected) users so far. MastCell Talk 06:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

dear sir

hello sir,my name is Pramod VERMA,I am research fellow in Stanford university labs. may I please to ask you if you can msg Dr. Sameer who I have lost e-mail when my computer crash. i have collect data for research and Sameer and I in October were working on it together. please sir,if you are in the e-mail contact with Sameer,please ask him to message Dr. Pramod Verma,he has the e-mail address. thanking you in advance ,sincerely,Pramod Verma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.242.39 (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You've left a message on his user talk page. He'll see it there. MastCell Talk 06:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed: deletion of "Eendrag"

Good day

I noticed that you deleted the article "Eendrag" under the Expired:PROD guidelines.

Personally I feel that the article met Wikipedia's notability criteria. Eendrag is a student residence, but has a measurable presence on campus due to it having a student comittee, sport teams, anthem, etc. It is not the same as a residential block of apartments, but rather in instance of the house system -- compare to any instance of a university "college" at Cambridge University, or even to dormitories at MIT.

Recent independent press coverage (mainly due to a fire which gutted the top floor) can by found at News24 and AllAfrica.

I notice that two of the other campus residences, Dagbreek and Wilgenhof, have retained their own pages on Wikipedia, which points to an inconsistency. It has to be noted that these articles are often contaminated with highly subjective praise (by residents). However, this should not negate the intrinsic value of the topic.

I am curious about the motivation of the original deletion tag. I suspect it might be related to inter-residence rivalry. FMalan (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article: Eendrag. Typically, if any editor feels the WP:PROD deletion was inappropriate, I go ahead and restore it. MastCell Talk 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey there! Just dropping a note to say "thank you very much" for your kind words and support at my RfA, which closed successfully. I really appreciate your comments - it's great to know that I'm striking the right tone with people, especially in some of the heated debates that I've seen and participated in here. Sometimes it's not easy, so I'm glad it's noticeable! I'll be doing my best to use the new tools for the benefit of the community. Thanks again for the support! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I'm pretty selective about whom I comment on at RfA, but you were an excellent candidate and I'm sure you'll be a great admin. Congrats. MastCell Talk 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid

I was asked by one of the editors to intervene at Plug-in hybrid, but you seemed to have acted while I've been away for a few days, so thanks. I've made some comments on the talk page, I don't know whether you want to add/change anything? Should this article's FA be reviewed? It wouldn't get through GA at present, since not stable? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, just responding to a report at WP:AN3 of a 3RR violation. I'm actually not up at all on the article or its travails, so I'm not sure whether its FA status should be reviewed. If it's truly unstable then perhaps it should go to FA review - however, if it's just one editor with a particular agenda who's edit-warring, then I wouldn't see the need. If you'd like me to take a more detailed look at it, please let me know. MastCell Talk 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that recent instability has either come under control, or that it will do so in the very near future. I have no intention of carrying on the edit war, although I will continue to monitor the article and eliminate edits that are in clear violation of Wikipedia rules. If User:Xchange is willing to open a consensus-building dialogue, I am quite certain he/she can have his/her valid information incorporated into the article without causing angst. If he/she continues to attempt to force his/her edits onto the page without dialogue, I shall monitor the situation without resorting to the simple reverts I used in the past (although I may suggest changes and implement them if I receive support from other editors). If other editors agree that Xchange is editing in violation of Wikipedia policies, I will not hesitate to report Xchange to the appropriate admins. I would be greatly saddened if this situation threatened the article's FA status, and I seek your input as to how I could help avoid this possibility. Many thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Torres

Why was this page deleted? It was a page for a contract character that appeared on Sunset Beach. Why didn't anyone contact the creator of the page (me) before deleting it? Anyway, I've re-added it. And sorry for bothering you, I don't know why nobody said anything about this---I can't go around and click on every article I created to make sure it's still there. Thanks. Dmarex (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted via the WP:PROD process, meaning that another editor tagged it and it was uncontested for a 5-day period. Such articles can be restored at the request of any editor, so it's fine that you recreated it - though it may end up at articles for deletion for wider discussion. It's courteous to leave a note on an article creator's talk page when nominating an article for WP:PROD - I'm sorry that the nominator did not do so in this case. The best idea is to use the watchlist (if you don't already) - when you create a page (or care significantly about it), you can add it to your watchlist and thus be notified if it's edited, nominated for deletion, etc. MastCell Talk 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Dmarex (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

MastCell, I am very aware of what Vandalism is on Wikipedia. As per the definition, it is vandalism to remove large portions of content without valid reason, or to inject POV into an article. Additionally, creating sockpuppet accounts for blanking large portions of pages and injecting POV also falls under vandalism. UNINTENTIONAL NPOV violations are NOT vandalism. INTENTIONAL repeated injections of POV into an article IS vandalism. Please be aware I do not issue warnings very often, and I don't throw the term Vandal about often. Take a look at my contribs. However, in this case, it is definately warranted, and I am not the only editor to express such concerns. Thanks. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

No, that's true - one other editor has suggested such concerns, but User:Strider12's misunderstandings of policy are quite deep and I wouldn't be too quick to use him as an example. You may be correct about IronAngelAlice's edits violating NPOV, but they are simply not vandalism. If you believe that repeated, intentional injection of POV into an article is vandalism, say by a single-purpose editor with conflict of interest, then where's the warning for User:Strider12? MastCell Talk 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar

Let's go in a different direction. :)

Image:Halfstar.png The Half Barnstar
I pledge to work WITH you on the David Reardon Article, I hope we can come to a consensus and bring a balanced NPOV article to wikipedia. As a gesture of goodwill, I hereby award you The Left Half of the Half Barnstar! Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have no idea how Wikipedia administration works. Do you know how I should handle this by Ghostmonkey57?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Magnonimous

Hi. After you blocked Magnonimous (talk · contribs), Jerome709 (talk · contribs) put up an unblock message saying that he was autoblocked as a result. Based on their shared interest in Okinawa Coral and that Magnonimous left a message on my talk page last night even though I have never had contact with him before, I'm assuming that the two of them are sock puppets, possibly along with MoonLightGlory (talk · contribs). Sandstein removed the autoblock before seeing my message on Jerome709's talk page. I have blocked Jerome709 directly. Feel free to review. Personally, I'm inclined to ask for a checkuser to find any other accounts, then ask the user to pick one and stick to it. --B (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. Good pickup on the autoblock - I'm about to go have a gin-and-tonic and some leftovers, but if you're up for contacting a checkuser to empty out the sock drawer, I think that's a good idea. I'm a bit pessimistic about this editor's potential, but then I have been accused of being a bit over-cynical on such matters. MastCell Talk 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous. I'm not sure if there's enough here that it won't get a "checkuser is not for fishing" reply, but it's at least worth a try. --B (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please take another look at User talk:Jerome709. I flipped a coin and it came up AGF so I have removed the direct block on his account. The explanation for his one edit to the same article sounds reasonable. I'd still like to hear an explanation for the shared IP ... but a checkuser can make a determination whether they are really the same person by checking browser properties, watchlists, etc. --B (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... Jerome709's first 3 edits were to blue out their user and user talk pages; the 4th edit was to WP:AN/I on a matter concerning User:ScienceApologist. And now they happen to share the same IP, edit the same articles, and be "amused" at each other's antics. It sure sounds like a sock/meatpuppet to me; I suppose checkuser will help clear it up, though, and I don't have a problem with waiting for the results before making a decision about re-blocking. MastCell Talk 06:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Time to reset my coin - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous. My inclination is at the very least to indefblock all but Magnonimous and Jerome709 and ask him to pick one or the other. Alison has blocked the IP for a month, so whichever main account he chooses should probably be blocked for that long, with the other indefblocked. Any thoughts? --B (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, my inclination would be to block them all indefinitely - he's been quite tendentious and unconstructive in a variety of ways, and if you add on top of that blatant bad faith (socking, lying about it, vote-stacking, etc) I don't see a lot of reason to give him even more rope. But that's just me, and my patience with tendentious single-purpose sockpuppeteers is at an all-time low. Your suggestion is perhaps more generous and even-handed. At the least, I'd block them all indefinitely except for the longest-standing account; and block that one for 1 month with a detailed block summary pointing to the checkuser request, as you suggested. MastCell Talk 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked all of the accounts indefinitely except for Magnonimous (which appears to be the master account). I'll leave it up to you what to do with that account; I could live with a 1-month block with a clear link to the checkuser case in the block summary, though my inclination is toward indefinite. MastCell Talk 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with an indefinite block all around if you want to do that - useful contributions from the accounts were minimal. --B (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Done... thanks for your work on this. MastCell Talk 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to this

(legal threat removed by TK)

(Sorry Mast cell I feel it's my duty to butt in) Orange Marlin. If oyu feel it's your civil duty to harrass editors in real life then I need to warn you that we feel it's our duty to prevent you threatening to do so here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So now we have a user who threatens to act in RL on his Wikipedia statements. IMHO, this puts his earlier death threat [3] in a new perspective. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Your continued insistence on feigned misunderstanding of the "death threat" violates WP:POINT, and an uninvolved administrator should block you for it. Enough is enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Your assumption that I am feigning misunderstanding is a clear violation of WP:AGF. I am taking this threat very seriously, in view of earlier experiences. Why is it not ok to threaten to inform someone's employer, but perfectly fine to threaten to execute someone? Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Becayse he clearly didn't mean it as a death threat but as a figure of speach. This has already been explained to you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Theresa, thank you for this response, but I'm going to have to stand up to your other response. You call it harassment. Sadly, it's not, it's MY LEGAL OBLIGATION. However, and this point is important, I've not done anything approaching harassment. I have not contacted him by email. I have not written his superior officer. Hell, since I don't know his name or location, I couldn't do either. I am merely defending Jim, as an employee of the United States Government, has an ethical, moral and legal responsibility to place someone on notice for wasting United States taxpayer money. Maybe Jim could have done it more diplomatically, but in fact, the email did not read that bad. My hope is that VO figures out that he's probably doing something at the minimum inappropriate, and at the maximum, a court martial offense. And truly Guido needs to be blocked. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And It's my WIKIPEDIA OBGLIGATION to stop you making such threats here. Do you understand? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hold on let me think about this. Wikipedia, a private foundation vs. my oath to the United States Navy and the Constitution of the United States, my agreement to follow the UCMJ, and my duty as an officer. Hmmm. I think Wikipedia fails in this matter. And Guido should be blocked. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OM's version of the UCMJ seems to have been replaced in 1998 with a far more liberal text [4]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Koonleg50 (talk · contribs)

Just letting you know he's at it again. He put back the wikified text in Wing Tsun, then went and created the page Yong Chun Kungfu and copied over all his unreferenced material in to it. Its been speedy deleted 3 times by other people, and he keeps putting it back. Its been put up for deletion several times by other people, and he keeps contesting. I've again tried to compromise by moving the page to the correct name Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu, adding a reference, clearing out a large listing of links he made to the Chinese Wikipedia, and further explaining the situation on the Jee Shim talk page. I also rewrote the section on the Wing Tsun page to further compromise. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He just did it again at Wing Tsun and Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu, I've stopped before 3rr and filed a complaint against at the adnimistrator board. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

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/John Gohde 2/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/John Gohde 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The MfD timeline you present in your evidence is incorrect. The comment you link to is from 20 December; the MfD didn't close until 22 December. Please correct your version of events. Thanks. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. MastCell Talk 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

You have a point; the only reference I have to support the low-power flash assertion is from a vanity press: Bollin, Bill (2003). Downwinders: Your Personal Survival Guide to an Uncertain Future. New Century Press, 11. ISBN 1890035289.  The obvious place to check next is google patents. If I find nothing there I'll update my remarks. Still, if I could be fooled, it's not clear User:John Gohde wasn't just fooled also. -- Kendrick7talk 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about 2 different things. One is the flash issue; I'd be happy to hear anything you turn up on Google patents. The other is User:John Gohde's role in the AfD/MfD. My problem there was the canvassing. While he canvassed "only" 2 folks, they were carefully selected, I think it's reasonable to believe, based on how he thought they would vote. This falls under the "Votestacking/Partisan audience" part of WP:CANVASS. We may just have to agree to disagree there. MastCell Talk 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stepped in something I didn't want to step in

Hi MastCell,

I got involved in something that is over my head, and I notice you're involved with the John Gohde RFAR. FYI, the following might have something to do with it:

If you feel it would be useful for me to submit some kind of evidence at the RFAR, I can summarize what happened here, although that will have to happen tomorrow. I really thought i was just stepping into a minor personality conflict; I'd never heard of John Gohde before in my life... --barneca (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, User talk:Igorberger#Propose changing section title at WP:ANI and User talk:Gohdeilocks#Renaming the ANI thread. --barneca (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: Now that I've had a chance to look into things, it looks like there's nothing to see here. Someone successfully trolled Igor Berger, a friend of John Gohde, and I unwittingly got sucked into it, wasting my time and, I'm sure, providing lots of entertainment to the troller in the process. As far as I can see, nothing really to do with the RFAR, so I'm just going to take what's left of my pride and pretend this never happened, unless I'm missing something and it belongs in the RFAR somewhere. --barneca (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Arrr. My head hurts. I'm tempted to block both accounts; neither one appears very constructive, and User:Gohdeilocks certainly appears to be up to no good, or at least nothing of benefit to the encyclopedia. I'll wait and see; let me know what you think. At some point I might ask one of the checkusers if they'd consider running the Gohdeilocks account, but I'm not there yet. MastCell Talk 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think your head hurts, I have whiplash from how fast I went from thinking Gohdeilocks was John Gohde, and thinking Igor was Gohde's archenemy, to realizing it was the reverse. I was one confused little puppy for a while. Since I'm in it now, I'll keep an eye on contributions from both accounts. IMHO no need for blocks or checkusers at this stage; I sort of think Gohdeilocks won't be back (but I've been wrong about 85 times today). If so, then maybe an RFCU. Evidently Igor already tried to get Deskana to run one anyway. --barneca (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to put this delicately, but I think Igor was his own worst enemy there. The more I look at Gohdeilocks, though, the more inclined I am to just block the account and be done with it. My New Year's resolution is to be a bit more proactive about such things. MastCell Talk 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to put this to bed, I agree with your assessment above, and the block of Gohdeilocks. It took me a while to realize who was trolling who, because IMHO Igor handled it so poorly, and because Gohdeilocks was pretty good at appearing reasonable. Learning experience. --barneca (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) Again

Is there any way you can take care of this again? Its 12 hours later, nobody has responded on the admin intervention request, and he's doing the disruptive edits and reverts again, doing everything you warned him not to do after the last block. Now he's throwing up edit protect tags as well in an attempt to protect his reverts. I'm at my wits end. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Update - another admin answered. He's now been blocked by admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Off to sleep for me......*thud*. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Good... sorry for the delay. I did see your note on WP:AN/I but had limited time to look into it. I know it's frustrating to post something there and have it ignored. I think the pattern is pretty clear here - if the exact same problems resume when this block expires, you can let me know directly and I'll take care of it. MastCell Talk 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

SSP look

I see you've been active at SSP, which is great. Someone asked for help, but I have prior admin actions on the case, Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MetaphorEnt#User:MetaphorEnt. I respect your views on SSP and would appreciate it if you handle this case. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you disagree with my handling. MastCell Talk 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs).
Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.


Fibromyalgia

Thanks for your comment on in the Medicine Wikiproject. Would you mind adding your input to the RfC on the Fibromyalgia discussion page? Djma12 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered and Mentorship

Hello MastCell - I don't know whether it's proper to write to your TalkPage - but I'm not strictly trying to influence you, only to answer a question that you've put (the answer to which doesn't belong on Jaakobou's ANI).

I was supposedly placed under "mentorship" by a CSN decision (shortly afterwards, the CSN was abolished - perhaps "discredited"?).

I say "supposedly placed under mentorship" because the motion to do it was pretty throw-away, as if to close the discussion prematurely. There'd been lots of ranting at the CSN about "legal threats" I might have made - but nobody could take it seriously - when, under repeated questioning, I denied making legal threats, my denial was taken as being more serious than the charge! (I'm not joking, look at the diff!) I'd already explained that I'd no intention of making "legal threats", I had no interest in doing so, and couldn't possibly have carried them out. However, I accept that, on this occasion, I had done something generally considered offensive. That is the sum total of real "crimes" by me in 18 months (3,000 edits?). All my "disciplinaries" are astonishingly light on evidence - when diffs have been produced, it's often turned out that my edit was excellent information, belonging in the encyclopedia - and has stuck.

Meanwhile, I and at least two other editors were waiting to hear the answer to my CoI question - so the CSN needed shutting down quick, the "mentorship" business was waved through on the nod. (We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes") but his conduct and circumstances might easily give cause for grave suspicion).

There was no discussion of any kind about what form the mentorship should take (and there is no such process in the WP punishment book). But it was understood by all parties to be consensual, it was up to me to find a mentor. Unfortunately, this was proving impossible - despite widespread agreement that my editing problems were/are fairly innocuous (was I sometimes uncivil? did I sometimes soapbox?), the vicious personal attacks launched on everyone who'd "defended" me meant that nobody was willing to come forward. (A member of the top management who has since been supportive was one of those who behaved really badly at one point).

This went on for some weeks, with Jaakobou jumping up and down and demanding to know when I was getting a mentor. (I was briefly blocked to try and hurry me along finding a mentor). User:SpecialJane came forward, and was found to be a banned sock-puppet.

User:Geni came forward, could see few problems with my editing but was bombarded with personal and then public demands that she find fault. Geni resigned, a sad blow - she'd been pro-active in querying my edits - and had saved me from causing quite serious potential offence to one or more random Hebrew speakers (on Jaakobou's instructions to get something translated).

But the demands to silence me continued, the peanut gallery demanded I have a new mentor, and that that person be an administrator - clearly, mere editors were dangerously prone to taking my side - even facing down the bullying of Jaakobou.

So User:Zscout370 stepped up - after 2 weeks of calm and working together productively (or at least happily) he was mysteriously de-syssoped for something else entirely (and forced to flee his home by California fires!). He asked another to block me for posting this semi-conciliatory message to Jaakobou's TalkPage. You might think this demand for a block to be bizarre indeed, since this is the fifth consecutive complaint on Jaakobou's page as to his tendentious behavior - and the most good-natured. Perhaps you'll now better understand why my block-record looks such a mess - "gross injustice" would appear to apply to this one. A similar case can be made for many (perhaps all?) my other blocks.

Another admin(?) stepped up but this wasn't good enough, he'd once shown himself supportive of me and the peanut gallery weren't having it. So, this time (instead of? as well?) I had a "prescriptive mentor" with a terrifying reputation imposed on me. This fifth mentor has ignored most of my demands for attention, but when he has stepped in his assistance has been most valuable. If he's had any reason to complain about me, he's not contacted me either publicly or privately. (Previous mentors have regularily queried my actions - eg with Geni there were, I think, 6 edits of mine that I defended to her apparent satisfaction, one silly mistake I'd corrected 36 hours earlier, and two red-lines, areas of discussion concerning Israel that cannot be permitted in articles, where I'd accepted her restrictions}.

I should emphasise that I've always considered mentorship an excellent idea, and have cooperated enthusiastically with each one - even, after an initially tense period, with the fifth, imposed mentor. Mentorship has not failed in my case - it's been a great success. Every mentor has been driven off by outside factors, mostly highly partisan interference.

Does that answer your question/s? PRtalk 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this situation has (quite appropriately) been referred to the Arbitration Committee, I don't really have anything else to say about it here. I'm going to archive this thread. MastCell Talk 16:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Bates method. The case is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thanks you. MBisanz talk 19:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)