User talk:MastCell/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Autism

Why did you locked the pages of discussion on autism? In general is strongly discouraged from Wikipedia block pages of discussion--Doctorfrancoverzella (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Complainant blocked as a sockpuppet in the relevant mess. The talk page was semi-protected due to sockfarm activity. GRBerry 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that saved me a few keystrokes. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why I was blocked? Ends When my block? It is not true that I abused multiple identities is the first time that I come subjunctive. I await your reply on this page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.35.115 (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh good... you have a dynamic IP. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked for violating the three-revert rule (it:Wikipedia:Regola dei tre ripristini di pagina) and for using sockpuppet accounts (it:Wikipedia:Utenze multiple) to engage in an edit war (it:Wikipedia:Edit war).

If you are Franco Verzella, you have a conflict of interest due to your personal involvement with DAN!, and you shouldn't be making multiple attempts to insert information about your organization. (See also it:Wikipedia:Pagine promozionali o celebrative.) Be aware that I do not speak Italian; I am only following interlanguage links. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:MEDRS#Should_we_make_this_a_guideline.3F

Hi MastCell, I'm not a WP:MED member, but I heard about this RfC thru the grapevine. From the brief description I read, it seems like a good idea, but I can't seem to find the actual proposed guideline! Can you point it out for me? I'd like to review it, and possibly vote (though, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion will be given since I'm not a member.) Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be at WP:MEDRS... does that work? MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nevermind, I figured it out. Yilloslime (t) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The gift that keeps on giving

Happy to make your acquaintance - it's amazing how many friends this guy gives me... anyone who blocks him, anyone who removes his edits, anyone who dares to mention that he is who we all know he is. You'd think he'd be tired of it all by now, but.... Cheers! Tvoz/talk 22:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Margulis - HIV/AIDS

What do you mean? I mentioned the list and referenced the list. She's in the list, this is an interesting fact and I didn't say anything more than that. So..? Sadunkal (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the guideline on reliable sources. Material must be sourced not just to a website somewhere, but to a reliable source. That requirement is all the more important on a biography of a living person. There is no way that a random, self-published AIDS-denialist website is a suitable source for controversial material about a living person. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The material IS the source. The text was that she's on the list, not that she has doubts. It's not any different than pointing out that someone was listed among the top terrorists, it's irrelevant if they really committed terrorist acts. The fact is they're listed as one, this alone is a very interesting information and worth mentioning. HIV/AIDS is one of the most well established theories and it's about the worst diesease in history after all. Sadunkal (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your line of reasoning. If someone was listed as a "top terrorist" by the U.S. Department of State, that would be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If they're listed as a "top terrorist" by a self-published website which coincidentally happens to argue that the Earth is flat, then that may be "interesting", but it's not appropriate for inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. It's a simple matter of the reliability of the source. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it like this: If al-Qaida members would claim that she is also one of them and list her name on their website as one of the members, and claim that she also wrote reviews for their publications, then I think this would be some very important and serious information. Add to that the fact that she doesn't even bother to sue them for smearing her name or anything like that. And don't you think that AIDS denialists are more comparable to terrorists instead of naive flat earthers!? So I think that this tells a lot and should be included. Sadunkal (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument that "she hasn't bothered to sue them, so it must be true" is extraordinarily wrongheaded. It's simple: provide a reliable source (as Wikipedia defines the term), or the material cannot be added. You're welcome to seek further input on the article talk page or the biographical noticeboard if you like. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about it being true, it doesn't even matter if it's true or not. It's the information in itself what makes it interesting. If Al-Qaida would publish a video tomorrow in which they claim that Lynn Margulis is one of them, wouldn't you add that information by referencing the video? I'm sure you would, why ressist when it's the denialists? Sadunkal (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If Al-Qaida were to claim Lynn Margulis as one of their own, the news would certainly be covered by independent, reliable sources with fact-checkers, and thus there would be no problem with citing those sources on Wikipedia. But really; that's enough hypotheticals, as we're going around in circles. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But what if the media doesn't want to cover any story related to Al-Qaida because they're afraid that its connections to CIA or some other dirty secret will be revealed? Would it be still not worthy publishing here? Isn't WikiPedia capable of publishing anything which isn't accepted by authorities? Sadunkal (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The answers to these hypotheticals can be found in Wikipedia's fundamental policies on verifiability and original research. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

May I add something like "Some AIDS denialists claim without any real proof that she has also doubts about the HIV/AIDS theory." ? Now this sounds alright doesn't it? Sadunkal (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is "no real proof" of something, and no reliable sources even supporting the claim, then it has no place in a Wikipedia article, much less in a biography of a living person. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. If you go to Hugo Chavez's WikiPedia entry, there you can read about accusations without "real proof" and without any reliable sources supporting the claims, under 5.4. "Foreign Policy". I think this information about Lynn Margulis is really fit to be a part of Wikipedia, it's a very interesting information and might be of use to the visitors. Sadunkal (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So may I add that unproven but important and serious claim to Lynn Margulis' entry now? Sadunkal (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is down the hall, to the left. And drop by WP:TE while you're in the neighborhood. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be directed at me or MastCell? Because it doesn't really apply to my position as far as I can see, or least not more than it applies to MastCell... Sadunkal (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Rubber and glue. It's been a pleasure. I'd suggest seeking outside input in the venues listed above if you feel your addition complies with Wikipedia's policies, since further discussion here seems unlikely to be persuasive to either of us. MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You can at least show the courtesy to tell me why you exactly object to my addition. Do you also object to the entries in Hugo Chavez's page or is that different? Then how is that different? Why the ressistance? Sadunkal (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've shown you a reasonable amount of courtesy, and I've also explained my objection at least 6 times in this thread alone. Perhaps you could point out where the Chavez article cites poor-quality self-published websites as the sole source for a controversial claim. Please do it on the Hugo Chavez talk page, where the poor sourcing (if any) can be corrected. Let's assume there are some sub-par sources on the Chavez article: the solution is to fix them, not to use them as justification to use even more bad sources. MastCell ^Talk 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make myself clear, it's about Chavez calling Bush an asshole and Bush calling him a Dictator without any proof, they don't even have "poor-quality self-published websites", they have absolutely nothing to back it up! And they don't need it either, because the claims alone are interesting. They show that there is something going on. Sadunkal (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

← That material should be removed from the Hugo Chavez article as unsourced. Feel free to do it if you like, or I will. I'm going to ask that we cease this discussion, as it appears non-productive. If you have reliable sources supporting the material you'd like to add, I'll be happy to listen. If you don't, then it will be removed, particularly from a biographical article. I'm not going to respond further than I already have to these same lines of argument, though, as I don't find this productive. I am only one editor, and you are as always welcome to pursue dispute resolution or seek outside input if you think I've been unreasonable. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think you don't want to understand, your argument doesn't make any sense(strawman). So you try removing it from Chavez's entry then, I don't think it should be removed, doesn't make any sense to me. You're almost like a reality denialist or something like that... Sadunkal (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• The part with Condy Rice and Devil Bush is also unsourced, why didn't you remove them, too? There is no reliable source suuporting the claim the he is the Devil. So...? Sadunkal (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And why not

Now why would you remove what appears to be the coolest game ever here. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured it wouldn't be worth the time to come up with drinking triggers that a) were funny and b) wouldn't piss people off. Perhaps I need to abandon one or the other criterion. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a drink every time someone adds an edit to Evolution that says, "it's only a theory." Or that you, me, JDF, etc are "on the payroll of Big Pharm." Ray Ray, of course, is on the payroll of "Big Farm." I think I could be solidly drunk 24/7. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of:

• Mentions "BADSITES".
• Invokes censorship to explain why Wikipedia doesn't include the "alternate view" that 2+2=5.
• Insists that "balanced" or "neutral" treatment of a fringe subject consists of equal amounts positive and negative coverage.
• Makes any sort of reference to 1984 (I think these are actually much more pervasively misused than Nazi analogies on Wikipedia).
• Any time a person demands you assume good faith and spectacularly fails to assume it themselves in the same sentence.
• Any time someone ascribes the lack of reliable sources supporting their pet idea to an obvious, but entirely undocumented, conspiracy.
• Any time [REDACTED FAMILIAR NAME FROM PROJECTSPACE] actually makes an edit to an article.
• Any time an editor with a permutation of the word "Truth" in their username turns out to be a tendentious agenda account.

But I'm open to more suggestions. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty more at Raul's Laws and Antandrus's Observations. My offering would be "Creates or argues against deletion of article entitled '[UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED OR REJECTED SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE] Controversy.'" (talk) Basil "Basil" Fawlty 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I don't know whether to call you "Bay Bay" or "Ray Ray". Can't you just pick a sock and stick with it? Or pick two, heck - just let me know. It is getting so every time someone I don't know says something witty, I check their userpage to make sure it isn't another incarnation of you. I'm much too old a puppy to be doing this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Something half-witty would be more typical. Haven't been able to settle on a name I really like yet. I did like this one, but there were, shall we say, unforeseen complications. I'm thinking of Sheriff Luger Axehandle. Before I create an account, is there anything obscene or objectionable about that? Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ray Ray, errrrr Basil. First of all, anyone under the age of about 40 would be clueless about Harry. I think it was humorous. I like the Boris one. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Boris was my favorite too, but he met an untimely demise related to changing a password. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ray Ray. It's not the difficult to have a new password emailed to you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily difficult if you haven't set up email before losing the password. Ray, I think you should go for something straightforward and classic, like User:WarriorForClimateTruth. Or perhaps User:ID Cabal Member #23. MastCell ^Talk 03:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should all have socks with Cabal Numbers. May as well give the anti-Cabal group something to write about. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:ID Cabal Member #23 would be perfect but I'm certain someone would wax indignant about it being divisive. (And besides I should be #1.) One of the more discouraging things I've learned here is that there are lots of people who take themselves way too seriously. So, you two meat-mechanics, what genetic defect causes a person to lose their sense of humor? Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The sense of humor is encoded on the short arm of chromosome 9. But you're talking about acquired loss, not congenital absence. It's probably a matter of nurture, not nature. Or epigenetic silencing; that's very hot these days. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) - a DSM IV diagnosis definitely, or loss of frontal lobe Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I remember years ago stumbling over a football (soccer) hooligan website, which was very funny, with lots of firms yelling abuse etc, there was one character called 'Cunty McFuck'...I couldn't stop laughing every time I saw it, but it was completely decerbrate humor and I wasn't even drunk. Proably couldn't use it here though...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(long uncomfortable pause)..well that was a conversation killer wasn't it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on yourself; it's Labor Day weekend in the US, so people may just be on vacation. They'll probably have something to say about Cunty McFuck by Tuesday. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect things will all cahnge in the future when we all get sooper dooper fast wireless on our really slim laptops...great for taking to boring family gatherings...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue what you guys have in Oz, but I have a super-slim Macbook Air with USB 3G Wireless, surfing proudly at speeds in excess of 3 mbps. I do not go on family picnics however. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wireless coverage still patchy (like in my house :( ) - you can get attachments etc. I am not too au fait with modern technology, so other aussies may have a better idea. Not generally an issue as hospitals have loads of 'puters everywhere to log on to, and otherwise I try to read books etc. on pub transport..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

please do no such thing

I am eating lunch using public wifi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, but I think registering an account will save you a lot of grief in the long run if you intend to edit controversial biographies of active political candidates - they will almost certainly be semiprotected for most of the remainder of election season. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I eat my lunch using a fork or spoon, typically. Wifi just makes my lunch drip everywhere. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Scottf43

Please keep an eye on this guy, I just had to remove a further talk page comment of his, he suggested that she was an alcoholic. I'm actively removing crap like that from the talk page. — Realist² 20:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that comment was the last straw. I've seen enough. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. — Realist² 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Weight

Poor baby )== But seriously, if we agree on the general principle, with you to help it could happen. Imagine being able to tell a fringe or debunking POV pusher that Weight is relative to the artcle's subject. Imagine being able to point to where it says so. This is what people fight about most. It could help greatly: what fringe debate doesn't basically revolve around this? But someone with power needs to push it into view for general editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are a few reasons I'm not getting deeply involved. For one thing, I'm not sure we're totally in agreement. I think weight is relative to the sources available on a subject. WP:PARITY already sort of covers this. But more to the point, I think the underlying problem here is not going to be fixed by any alteration to policy. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, so changing policy to change behavior is back-asswards. The effort is probably better spent trying to change editing behavior and the culture here, and when that changes policy will follow. Even if WP:NPOV suddenly said that "weight is relative to the article subject", I believe the same arguments would continue in the same places involving the same people.

At bottom, I'm at the point where I need to be thoughtful about how I spend my time and energy here. I no longer have a lot of patience for the repetitive idiocy and pettiness of this site, so I'm limiting my exposure to it. There are articles and subjects I care deeply about - the reason I started editing in the first place was because I was seeing the end results of crappy medical information and the promotion of quackery on Wikipedia - and I'm trying to focus there. I'm not always successful, but I'm trying. MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the only admin that seems to be awake

and this guy is getting out of hand.Kww (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really that awake, but I will handle it. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP situation on Sarah Palin

BLP situation on Sarah Palin is really getting out of hand with accounts like User:Cookiecaper constantly posting to the talk page [1] and more rarely to the article [2]. We need an admin ruling on whether the talk page threads constantly reinstated violate BLP by unsourced or poorly sourced rumor mongering. Hobartimus (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's my take on the situation. We're more or less where the John Edwards scandal started out: there's a salacious, extremely hurtful allegation being bandied about by patently unreliable sources. Reliable sources have noted that a rumor exists but have clearly declined to substantiate its truthfulness in any way. Some people want to run with the existence of a rumor. I feel the same way I did about Edwards: poorly sourced, hurtful rumors have no place on Wikipedia. This will be either confirmed or repudiated by reliable sources soon enough, and we should prioritize getting it right over getting something in the article right now.

That argument fell on largely deaf ears with Edwards. It was just a big pain in the ass for me; people erroneously concluded that because the rumor subsequently turned out to be true, their pushing for crappy sourcing in a BLP was retroactively justified. I am a connossieur of irony, so I appreciate the fact that some of the same people agitating to use the National Enquirer as a "reliable source" on John Edwards have metamorphosed overnight into BLP hardliners when it comes to Daily Kos and Sarah Palin. Beyond that, I've decided I'm not going to get involved. There are >1,500 other admins, and this is their problem. I'm going to spend my time here on things I actually personally care about. I'm sorry I can't be of assistance. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See, that didn't take long. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm suspicious here

Maybe you should delete the question. I'm guessing someone doing research in chemical analysis for a forensics program would have much better resources than Wikipedia. And from what I know, this is not something that should be made public. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I'm tempted to tell him how to make meth out of Sudafed for good measure... but you're probably right. I can pretty much guarantee that no college lab project involves converting a Schedule III controlled substance into a Schedule II controlled substance. It sounds extracurricular. But that's why I stay away from the Reference Desk. MastCell ^Talk 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact the answer is widely available. It's amazing how lazy "students" can be. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The refdesk editors are buzzkills, and clearly have not looked into our pharmacology articles. Wikipedia, for example, has fairly detailed information on how to make crunk juice, down to the proper dosage, as well as a short treatise on MDMA synthesis. I doubt, however, that someone who has to ask the refdesk how to perform a cold water extraction can pull off a reductive amination. Skinwalker (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've taken codeine/Phenergan - not recreationally, but for a recognized indication - and it made me feel simultaneously overwhelmingly sleepy and overwhelmingly nauseated, with a side of akathisia - not an experience I would seek to replicate. 'Course, I didn't mix it with Sprite, so maybe that was the problem. People will do anything for a buzz - our article notes at least 3 prominent deaths-by-purple drank. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

War Machine (disambiguation)

I made another protection request at WP:RFP. Don't know what is the anon's deal here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wide World of Sports edits

Thank you for your commentary on the edit war. Since the issue is, for now, solved, I'm going to review the files you mention and see how this can be handled better in the future. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

talk:Abortion

Are you familiar enough with whats been going on to do a talk page archive?--Tznkai (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I could try. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RFAR alert

One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. GRBerry 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - I actually already left a comment there. In light of current events, I'm quite happy with my earlier decision not to make myself the WP:BLPBAN test case. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha!

You're fine. I think people have sensed the gravity of the situation now. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good... my block log is ugly enough as it is. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting my talk page and Bristol Bay. Cheers! --Tom 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure... I don't think I've edited Bristol Bay, but for some reason I can't recall your talk page is on my watchlist, and I noticed that fellow repeatedly restoring posts you'd removed. Anyhow, hopefully he'll follow your lead and disengage. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to remove the part about you editing Bristol Bay, that was my mistake. I will try not to edit war and get others involved. As far as this "fellow" disengaging, I wouldn't count on it. He/She has used up their allotment of my good faith and I have none remaining for them. Anyways, cheers :) --Tom 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The feeling is 100% mutual. Dems on the move (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal (talk · contribs) sockpuppets

208.101.118.33 (talk · contribs) and Soyuz113 (talk · contribs). The IP address is from Ontario Canada, and is back putting in POV edits to Chiropractic. Soyuz is maybe a bit less certain. You've deal with this individual, so maybe you can utilize those admin powers to good use. I'd ask Ray Ray, but so far, I'm getting whiny responses about this and that to not use his powers in a useful manner. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, obviously not a new editor. I will try to look into it, but it may be faster to submit a checkuser request on the basis of shared interests and possible block evasion. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I got bitch slapped by the secret tribunal (well, it was more of a secret bitch slap) for various infractions of checkuser. So, even though I have about a 95% success rate in identifying abusive socks, I figured I'd bring it to you. I'll bring it up with jpgordon too. He's a Checkuser, of course. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, is it proper for an editor to continually remove innocuous comments from a user who is only suspected of being a sock puppet. [3] [4] [5] Please note that on this suspect sock's user page, admin AGK extended the user a second chance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a misleading comment by Levine2112. AGK has defered to any uninvolved admin. See also: Wikipedia:RFCU#CorticoSpinal. QuackGuru 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AGK also confirmed that it was CorticoSpinal, but refuses to do anything. Instead he is giving him a second chance! (This thrice indef banned user got plenty of "second chances", to no avail.) This action of protecting a thrice indef banned user who is evading a block is unheard of and should have serious consequences for AGK's admin status. He is openly protecting (and thus advocating) someone who is violating our standards of conduct here. He is violating our trust. As an admin he is duty bound to uphold and enforce the rules here. -- Fyslee / talk 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is solid evidence CorticoSpinal has returned to Wikipedia. It seems like he forgot to log in. Any uninvovled admin can block CorticoSpinal per WP:QUACK. QuackGuru 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit may be of interest. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please move this discussion and all its useful tidbits to either WP:SSP or WP:RFCU(if there is enough evidence to get a report). Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CorticoSpinal -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My bet is that CorticoSpinal is gaming the system, so RFCU is not going to work. We'll have to use SSP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, can you please do that? I don't have the time for the next couple days. -- Fyslee / talk 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but only if someone around here stands up for me if and when certain individuals by the name of FT2 decide to start secret hearings against me for abusing the SSP process. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I contacted an admin by e-mail. Give it a few days to let Wikipedia's process to work. QuackGuru 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Begin Friday afternoon silliness

The funniest damn thing I've read all week. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

... and given this week's events, that's saying something. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing User talk:Keeper76. It has destroyed my watchlist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys need to get out more. And I mean that with love. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very true that I'm rather pasty-skinned. Comes with the territory though. Keeper ǀ 76 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how was the convention? MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Several, important roads and freeway exits were closed. Lots of out-of-towners were clogging up the roads that weren't closed. Some windows at some St. Paul department stores were broken by masked anarchists. What else would you like to know? Glad it's over. Keeper ǀ 76 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And the Twinkies return home. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank God. Or Thank Science. Your choice. Keeper ǀ 76 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note the next section. It's a Sarah Palin thread.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to it - I'd almost missed it as it's a whole 0.65 inches below this thread. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Inches?????? It measures 1.47 cm on my screen. Metric dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you hate America? MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate America because the food is not as good as France, the music is not as good as Cuba, and the skiing is not as good as Switzerland. I love America because the food is better than Cuba, the music is better than Switzerland, and the skiing is better than Cuba. Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I messed that up. You get the idea. This was harder than it seems so I will not try again.Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause I'm a Liberal Democrat/Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheistic/Pot-Smoking/Hybrid-driving/Over-educated/Pinko elitist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that those adjectives are entirely redundant? MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong here

The quote was accurate, and the grammar....well, not so much. But she did say "that that". And there are grammatical reasons for using it. So, I can't revert (which would have made my year), because someone, thinking that there's some interest in a Republican Governor from Alaska, who isn't as cute as some think, has locked the fucking headache-inducing article. So, please use your vast admin powers to revert yourself and give me the appropriate credit. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone was kind enough to post the entire quote, and I realized that that "that" was actually reasonable, if infelicitous. I reverted myself. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MastCell you are edit warring with yourself on a protected article (which means you are actually wheel warring with yourself). I'm telling TimVickers on you. I'd leave a cute blocked template, but I'd hate to freak out Sandy again. --barneca (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring. I've discussed it with myself on the talk page and reached a consensus with myself. As long as I don't start tendentiously edit-warring against my consensus with myself, I don't see a problem. I will admit to being afraid of Tim, though. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion on-wiki. Wait... don't tell me... you discussed this with yourself on IRC, didn't you??!!. --barneca (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and then I threatened to release the logs, which led me to consider blocking myself. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a headache. Don't do that to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't unblock yourself. You've already wheel-warred with yourself once[6]--don't do that again, mmmkay? Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But if I don't unblock myself, who will? MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well don't count on that admin by the name of Raymond Arritt (talk · contribs) to help out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm too busy munching popcorn while watching a sitcom. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's reality TV, kid. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching Keeper76's page. It's funnier. As for Ray Ray? He's been inhaling corn pollen too long in Iowa. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention corn pollen to me unless there's money or a coauthorship involved.[7] Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur alert here Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unnecessary_protection_at_Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have commented there. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Thank you for placing the {{uw-npa2}} template on User talk:67.174.242.250. Will you place a similar template on on this talk page for the personal attack in the edit summary? You can see from the user's talk page, that he has a long history of feuding with the community. Dems on the move (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No. You are giving every appearance of trying to escalate rather than resolve this dispute. The other party has disengaged. I would strongly suggest you do the same. Move on and go back to editing the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI

Thank you for your warning to User:CENSEI (although it hasn't sunk in, apparently). I was beginning to find his attention unnerving. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He's welcome to remove the notes from his own talk page if he likes. If the behavior continues to be a problem, then let me know. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin policy question

Your Sir, are Big League. I get berated for being an appreciator of scotch and soda, but the thought of gin and tonic makes me cry for my mommy.

I have just a small policy question. I did attempt to find an answer on my own, but this may refer to a rather minor and obscure policy, if one exists. Is it inappropriate when debating on a talk discussion page, when during a back-and-forth debate with an admin, the following takes place:

1. He posts an unindented statement supporting his position.
2. I write a rebuttal to that position immediately below his statement with a single indent ":".
3. He then inserts an unrelated "And, by the way..." comment beneath his original statement, and inserts an an extra indent on my already posted rebuttal, pushing it beneath his new off-topic comment.
4. I then replied to his second new topic, just beneath that new comment, with a double-indent.

At this point I realize my reply to his original statement has been pushed away from the text it was intended to address. It becomes some sort of disjointed, out-of-place orphan, and makes it appear that his original statement had no rebuttal.

5. I then posted that I intended to put my first reply back under his first statement , where it had started, and move the inserted text and it's reply to the bottom, and asked if he objected to this.
6. He apparently decided to do me the favor, and moved things back where they were, and also deleted my statement that I wished to do that very thing.

My panties aren't in-a-bunch over this, but I'm new here and it seemed somewhat fishy. Is this common practice? Is it considered acceptable talk-page behavior?

Thanks much. Paul Spiff1959 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Lordy, I've been snooping around and am amazed at the depth, layers, and complexity of the WP commuity: admins, sysops, superops, arbitration pages, wheel war pages, apparent offsite chats via mIRC. You guys are busy. I seriously do not need a reply to my trivial question. I have an instinctive feeling that it's not my place to delete this section from your talk page, even though I authored it. I sincerely invite you to do so. Spiff1959 (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. To be honest, the proliferation of bureaucracy is one of the most unfortunate things about Wikipedia. I think it's off-putting to newcomers to have so many layers of functionaries to sort through. I think the problem is that no thought was given, when the project was small, to how its mechanisms would scale. And now it's huge - too big to change things by "consensus", which is the only approved method of changing policy (including the consensus policy).

Anyhow: regarding the talk page formatting, there are not really hard-and-fast rules (though the talk page guidelines contain some suggestions). Basically, anything that preserves context is good. Anything that moves things around and makes it harder to follow is bad. So, without looking at the specifics of your situation, I think that whatever formatting makes it easiest to follow the discussion is best. In general, people are discouraged from retroactively inserting comments out-of-sequence, because it destroys continuity. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very discouraged. Yes, I have political views. Yes, I try hard not to inject them into my reasoning here. But to look over the two crusades I've adopted in my lenghty 3-day WP career (both on the Sarah Palin page, they are "Suggested edit to Public Safety Commissioner section & Gripes" and "Edit request: 2008 vice-presidential campaign - Convention speech". You can't refute that at least the PSC paragraph reflects events occuring in an incorrect order, which does create bias, and, that the Palin speech description contains broad unsourced claims that impart additional bias. So, I'll get a couple of people in agreement, then someone comes along and starts the cat-fight, they'll come back at my assertions over-and-over, coming from all sorts of angles, new lines of attack, distractions, segues , throw everything including the kitchen sink, relevant or not, at my proposals. The topic loses interest, fades away, and nothing gets done. I'm beginning to feel that rather than some grand altruistic project, WP is ruled by egos, turf wars, and latent or overt personal bias. I'm about to turn in my notice I think. That being the case, I'll throw out an egotistical opinionated statement of my own: I've been eating the breakfast, lunch, and dinner of one of your 'famous' admins for 2 days. He's not someone I would want arguing on my behalf in court. There, I feel better (a little) now. But I'm still frustrated, and borderline disillusioned.

Anyway, thanks for your time, and for listening to my rant (hope you got out your violin while reading it)Spiff1959 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - I did have one minor victory on the Messerschmidt ME-262 page, corrected a little verbage there. I'm not just here to fight off the right wing. Truth, facts, accuracy, they are more important! (programmers are sticklers for detail ya know) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still here. It may be that I picked a bad time to investigate WP, that I'm seeing it at it's ugliest, and that the fully-protected pages are ground-zero for the ugly-stick strike. You'd previosly mentioned "consensus", and I think it may be a huge contributor to my (and others) frustrations. The problem is, the manner in which users respond to an approve/oppose editprotected request. Guidelines should be in place to limit the vote to: "Is this edit preferable to the exisitng entry? If not, explain your reasoning." I'd have corrected a number of inaccuracies or misrepresentations were this in effect. Users will use an "oppose" to make arguments of a much greater scope than what is being requested. They will append their own wish-list, insert additions, offer counter versions, inevitably taking the discussion off on some tangent. They'll use obfuscation to distract from a unwinnable point. If the scope of the approve/oppose process were strictly limited to contrasting the newly proposed text to the existing text, Let them state their complaints, and allow the author to make changes if he wishes. There should be some timetable when an admin would "score" the request, author modifications to the proposed change to satisfy someone in opposition ought to reset the "clock", there should be a percentage (weighted?) to indicate what qualifies as a "consensus". With a system similar to that, I think much more would get accomplished.

Having multiple talk-page sections opened regarding changes to the same article text is a huge pain in the rear as well.

My two cents. Sorry to be a headache. Spiff1959 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the absolute worst way to be introduced to Wikipedia is to jump into a controversial article. And I've never seen anything as ugly as the Sarah Palin wars in the 2 years I've been contributing to this site. I was fortunate enough to come here and start working on uncontroversial medical topics, and got my feet wet, met some very nice and helpful folks, and got to like the place. By the time I got involved in anything controversial, I knew my way around the place and I knew what sort of behavior was acceptable by this site's (written and unwritten) standards.

If you want my advice, find some lower-profile article that you're interested in - if you're a programmer, consider something related to your work, maybe - and work on that for a while. Lurk and see how controversies play out here - there is a huge learning curve. You'll come away with a much better impression of this place and its denizens if you avoid Sarah Palin articles for awhile. Anyhow, happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 03:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops... I thought I could add a bit more to the end of that before you got to it. I was inccorect in that assumption! The prior post has been updated after your response. Spiff1959 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I do thank you very much for allowing me an outlet. You've been very gracious. I'm not sure whether I'll acquire enough enthusiasm to hang here, or if the frustration will win out and I'll bail. I shall cease occupying your time. Maybe I'll run across some of your contributions somewhere, maybe the Palin page? Or maybe not ;) Have a nice evening. Spiff1959 (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Clique Film prod request

Hello. I noticed you deleted this prod for The Clique (film). The film exists, and should be out this year, so it should be reinstated. I understand that prod deletions are easily overturned, so I hope you can help. Thanks. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a made for DVD movie with no notability. Existing does not make it instantly notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. You're free to AfD the film when it is undeleted. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've restored the article - you're correct, WP:PROD deletions can be overturned at the request of any editor. I do think this should go through AfD as I think it fails notability criteria, but before I do that: do you have any knowledge of appropriate sources that would meet the bar set in the notability criteria? MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK

Thank you, and for what its worth, I honestly don't have a problem with anyone there as such, I just think people need to settle down, but they won't see that they need to settle down unless they take a break. I'm targeting everyone because I think no one in particular is at fault so much as the aggregate is making editors collectively stupid. Similar to a mob mentality --Tznkai (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Political views

I am at a loss on what to do with Kelly (talk · contribs). He/She keeps reverting material that is well sourced, simply because he does not like it, and despite attempts to bring it to discussions. She has violated 3RR again today, despite the incident of yesterday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we allow editors to do that? Why don't you guys block him/her, or is it because he/she is too powerful? I get my ass chewed if I'm slightly difficult, but he/she is uncivil, tendentious, and really out of control.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What can I tell you? When I encounter people enthusiastically and unapologetically reaching 6+RR and topping it off with incivility and personal attacks when asked to slow down, I generally block them. Obviously that approach is not universal. That said, Tznkai's approach led to a compromise on the main issue I was arguing about, so that worked out. I suppose the concern is that the edit-warring is continuing, as are some of the more idiosyncratic claims of BLP. I'm not on the case as an admin, so I can't really advise anything other than taking it up (again) with Tznkai. For your own sanity, I would advise a self-imposed 1RR. Let other people climb (further) up the Reichstag. Personally, I can't say I care enough about the article to deal with people who are convinced they're at war, but I will probably continue to look in and comment on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

polishing

I am going to ask reconsideration on technical accuracy and NPOV construction, particularly the last sentence.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain the concern at Talk:Matthias Rath? MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we crossed edits after my article space edits, 1241 (you at the article) and my longer discussion at 1243 in Talk.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I'd appreciate your views and input on the matter discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Should_use_of_primary_sources_be_legitimised_by_citations_of_the_primary_source_in_existing_secondary-source_literature.3F. It's the talk page for a proposed PSTS rewrite. Jayen466 02:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

Hey Mast Cell, Thanks for the "last warning," also my first warning, about writing "defamatory remarks." I would say calm down and stop being so self important. Just remove the sentence on the talk page about Rielle what's her name that I wrote if it is so offensive. By the way, have you been watching me since the Lyme's disease disagreement or do you just check thousands of random articles? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdurbin (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How many warnings do you expect for this sort of thing? At the time, that was our most-viewed page. As it happened, I was watching the Rielle Hunter pages because of the massive amount of vandalism they attracted; I doubt I made the connection with your previous strong advocacy for the Lyme-disease-as-biowarfare-agent conspiracy theory. Thank you for reminding me. MastCell ^Talk 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding lyme disease post: By the way, it wasn't strong advocacy, it was an innocent suggestion that again people overreacted to, and I felt it wasn't being considered so I persisted in trying to make my point clearer (on the talk page). And as you might have noticed, I did some more research (what I wanted my posting to encourage) ended up linking to an article that found relatively high diversity among disease-causing Lyme bacteria, contradicting my theory. Amdurbin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein

Hi,

This looks like a violation of BLP to me, saying he's a pseudoscience promoter in the first sentence and sourcing it to his own website. But this isn't my area. If you're around and have time, could you look at it? Also posted this to Father Goose, but he's on vacation. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the "pseudoscience" characterization (which is as well sourced as the rest of the article, to damn with faint praise), I seriously doubt the statement "None of Haramein's work has not been peer-reviewed" is accurate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about that statement seems not to be untrue. In all seriousness, I think the article should be deleted for lack of notability. There are no good sources, pro or con, which means that writing a neutral encyclopedic article will be virtually impossible. MastCell ^Talk 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Grr.... it was just AfD'd, and despite a clear consensus to delete (among those offering reasonable rationales), the AfD was incorrectly closed as "keep and cleanup". I'm tempted to take it to WP:DRV, but that's a lot of work. But if I renominate it for deletion, people will be screaming that it's bad faith since it just survived an AfD. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mental note to self: close more AfD's. MastCell ^Talk 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the first citation. I think that cite was originally put there to support the fact that he promotes his theories through oral presentations rather than through traditional scientific channels, but way the sentence was constructed poorly and the position of the cite made it appear that his own website supported the pseudo-science characterization of his work, which obviously it doesn't. Hopefully this is resolved now. Anyways, I can't find any reliable 3rd parties sources about the guy--pro or con--which is why I !voted delete and will do so again if it's re-AfDed (assuming no sources actually pop up). In the meantime, if the article is going to exist it should describe his work accurately, i.e. as pseudoscience. And I have to disagree with RA: None of Haramein's work his peer-reviewed. If the statement is indeed wrong, it should be trivial to show it's wrong (all someone has to do is find a single paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal). Yet despite repeatedly challenging the various WP:SPA's who edit the article to provide an example of one, so far, no one has risen to the equation occasion. Also, FWIW, as discussed at User_talk:Guyonthesubway#Avsav, one of the SPAs may have a WP:COI. Yilloslime (t) 03:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The SPAs were of good intent, and were trying to get bad stuff out of the article. But the subject is not notable. Thanks for taking an interest, MastCell (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

When you talk about the press criticism of Palin's Bridge to Nowhere, I wonder whether it's more notable that there's been a lot of criticism or what the critics said. I will put the Newsweek criticism that you removed back in the main text because I think frankly it sums it all up best in a pithy way (Now she acts like she's always been it against it), but I can see how putting it in all the quotes would make it too long. How about, since you removed the Newsweek and Wall Street Journal quotes, if you put all the critiques in the footnotes save the ones we leave in the text? A short phrase from each press source will do nicely. That way a reader need not click on the links to find out the essence of the criticism. You could put in the footnotes the Wall Street Journal quote you took out and quotes from the new sources you added. What do you think? I would ask though that you not remove the Newsweek quote though. I think it's far better than the Washington Post quote, because calling something a half-truth is never as notable as showing something to be a half-truth.GreekParadise (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the reason for the criticism is already summed up in the preceding paragraphs - it describes her support for the bridge, the initial attribution of its death to mean ole Congress, and then claiming credit for killing it off. The notable thing about the criticism, to me, was that it was widespread and coming from third-party sources, not just from the opposing campaign. It's actually pretty unusual (or has been, recently) for the media to call a candidate on "exaggerations" or untruths, so the volume of coverage was a bit surprising. I don't like to turn the article into a series of quotes - people can just read the sources themselves, hence the footnotes - and I prefer to summarize rather than patch together excerpts. I also thought the section was getting too long and unwieldy, and was trying to make it a more pleasant read (the effect of numerous quotes on a reader, I've found, is usually eyes-glazing-over). Anyhow, perhaps we should continue this on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Found something

I stumbled across a study you might be amused by. It is here.

Discussion: ... It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use <redacted> is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency. The widespread use of <redacted> may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events. Conclusion: As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of <redacted> has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of <redacted>.

I hope it amuses you. GRBerry 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that has long been a favorite of mine. There are many good things to be said for evidence-based medicine, but it does have some obsessive, anticommonsensical, cult-like elements which are neatly parioded in that BMJ piece. I cited it in a talk I gave at an institution where I'd trained, one of the leading lights in the evidence-based medicine movement. Reaction was mixed.

This is my second-favorite; always generates discussion. "The tallest and most handsome male students were more likely to go for surgery, and the shortest (and perhaps not so good looking) ones were more likely to become... doctors of internal medicine and its subspecialties." MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Crud article needing help

Can you take a look at Mythomania and get it beyond dictionary definition level to at least a decent stub? I'm reasonably certain psychiatry is not your specialty, but it is outside my competence zone. It came to my attention due to a thread at the BLP noticeboard. GRBerry 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, my training in psychiatry consists of 6 weeks spent in a locked-down inpatient psych ward as a medical student. It was good training for Wikipedia, actually. I still remember that once my resident and I were walking past the common room on the ward, where the music therapist was leading a group of patients in singing the song "I Believe I Can Fly". My resident and I stopped and looked at each other; the inspirational element was lost on us, as several of the patients did, literally, believe they could fly, a delusion which we were hoping to cure. In any case, I will look at the article, though it may be a couple of days. MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected it to Pseudologia fantastica (pathological lying). There are about 16 PubMed hits for "mythomania" - interestingly, nearly all in the French literature. Most are quite aged - the most recent is from 1995 or so. A quick Google search revealed mostly dictionary definitions, all of which bear a close resemblance to "pathological lying". I think that whatever differences may exist between "mythomania" and "pathological lying" could be covered in one article; certainly without sources (and I could not find any in my brief survey) a standalone article seems unwarranted, notwithstanding the BLP issues. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How about working on an article, and ignoring drama, a novel idea

Hypertension. It's a mess of an article, and it's really a key one. Going back to my singular mantra that more people come to Wikipedia for medical knowledge than their personal physician, the article is an MOS mess. And it's inaccurate. And it's hard to read (too many bullet points). I've been trying to get it laid out right, but wow. By the way, did you read the COURAGE study? I'm going to sell everything, and ride my motorcycle across the country without shaving, showering, and eating right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. MastCell ^Talk 05:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your comment on my talk page

"I'm curious about your method ...." <-- I've been reading the edit history of the Picard BLP, its talk page and related Wikipedia pages. I take notes and ask questions. Feel free to come over and participate. I welcome input from people who have edited the Picard BLP and other related articles. My short-term goal is to help improve Wikipedia articles. My long term goal is to learn from the past and help prevent future problems from arising in Wikipedia biographies. --JWSurf (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well:

1. I've never edited Rosalind Picard, nor, for that matter, any article even loosely connected to intelligent design, to my recollection;
2. I already take WP:BLP seriously, as I hope my record here will attest;
3. Having viewed the Wikiversity "investigation", I have no interest in legitimizing what appears to be a personal vendetta cloaked in an extraordinarily skimpy fig leaf.

Whatever questions you're asking, you've not bothered to ask me anything before questioning my motives and actions. It's hard to see the Wikiversity "investigation" as anything but an ironic exemplar of the very lack of professionalism which it purports to decry. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall having previously thought about your motives, but now that you raise the idea....why not? I have previously been puzzled about your actions: 1) why you, rather than KC, posted the block notice, 2) why the block notice you used had a link to the vandalism page and 3) why you failed to make sure that your signature showed on the talk page along with the link to the vandalism page. Since you mentioned the issue of motive, I now wonder why you felt motivated to place the block notice on Moulton's page. Did KC ask you to place the block notice on Moulton's page? If you had never previously edited with Moulton, why did you participate in his request for comment? How much time passed between the notice of Moulton's block and your statement...hm, what was your pithy and well-considered comment based on your careful evaluation of Moulton as a Wikipedian who had been seeking to fix biased BLPs....."good call"? I'm really glad that you take WP:BLP seriously, it shows in that comment. It is always good to see dedicated Wikipedians who carefully review a fellow Wikipedian's edit history before handing out an indef block. I'm tempted to award you the "ironic exemplar of professionalism barnstar". "a personal vendetta" <-- I've only known of Moulton's existence for a short time. I've long been involved in cleaning up bad Wikipedia BLPs. The only personal aspect of my involvement in BLP cleaning is my shame when Wikipedia does not get a BLP right. --JWSurf (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence. When you skeptically list my actions in a manner which implies sinister rather than everyday motivation, followed by: "Why did MastCell get involved? Why did MastCell do X? Why did he do Y?" in the context of your "investigation" into cabalism, you're questioning my motives. You're welcome to do that; I don't think, however, that the way in which you went about it is consistent with the ethical standards you claim to be focused on, nor with the professional "investigation" which the Wikiversity pages ostensibly comprise.

Since you ask:

1. I placed the block notice because I saw that the block had been enacted but no talk-page notice had been placed. I did not include a signature because I was not the blocking admin, and the signature might have given that impression. This is not the only time I've done exactly this (placed a block template to notify an editor of another admin's block, without using the "sig" parameter). I don't feel like going through my logs, which are rather lengthy, but with a fraction of the effort you've already invested in this investigation I'm sure you can find examples.
2. I used the {{uw-block3}} template. This is the standard, generic indefinite-block template. I was not aware at the time that its default link was to WP:VANDAL. Nonetheless, the block followed directly from Moulton's RfC, and between that and his subsequent commentary I have no doubt that he was directly aware of the rationale for the block, regardless of the link to WP:VANDAL.
3. No, KillerChihuahua did not ask me to place the block notice. Since you seem to view this as a possible scenario, I'm curious why you think she would do that?

I thought, based on my evaluation at the time, that Moulton was extremely unlikely to be a good fit with Wikipedia's policies and behavioral expectations. I saw his activity as disruptive, and a block as preventive: hence I endorsed KillerChihuahua's block, as well as her decision to post the block to WP:AN/I for outside feedback. While subsequent events have led to me to reconsider some aspects of my initial evaluation of Moulton, one thing that has been amply and fully reinforced was my original judgement: his approach is an extraordinarily poor fit for Wikipedia (and, it appears, several other online forums), and as such the block was reasonable.

I'm sympathetic to Moulton on several levels; the block has obviously been an extremely difficult experience for him to digest, and I feel badly about that as one human being to another. However, as far as I'm concerned, the block is not a judgement that he's a bad person; it's simply a judgement that this site's policies and goals are ill-suited for him. Those kind of judgements have to be made every day for an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to function. I see absolutely nothing in my commentary about Moulton, either during his RfC or subsequently, that violates the letter or spirit of WP:BLP, or for that matter any of our other behavioral policies. Are you suggesting that because I endorsed another admin's block with the words "Excellent call", that I've acted unprofessionally or contrary to WP:BLP? I don't understand the reasoning there.

Quite a few people have raised concerns about the process of the block, including some for whose judgement I have great respect. I'd be foolish not to re-examine Moulton's block in that context, and I have. I've drawn some lessons which I've tried to implement in my approach going forward. Do you have any other questions I can answer, or clarifications you would like? MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Please don't insult my intelligence" <-- I'm a scientist and I am well practiced in how to research a topic without jumping to conclusions. I formulate hypotheses and test them. Almost all of my hypotheses get rejected after I look at the evidence. I am perfectly capable of asking questions such as "Why did MastCell get involved?" without trying to imagine your thoughts and motivations. I know that I cannot read minds, so I seldom speculate about what people who I do not know closely might have been thinking. Above, I asked, "...why did you participate in his request for comment?" I guess what I meant is, "How did you become aware of the request for comment?" Based on your edit history, it looks like you just dropped in out of the blue in order to endorse KC's decision to indef block. Did KC or some other participant in the RfC ask you to endorse KC's decision to indef block? How long did you spend studying Moulton's edit history? "why you think she would do that?" <-- a reasonable hypothesis is that KC was making a questionable indef block, and she knew it. She invited others to reverse her action. It seems possible that she was in IRC or some other chat and said, "Moulton pissed me off and I hit him with an indef block, but it might not stand, since he did nothing to earn it." You might have been in the chat and decided to endorse the block at her request. Stranger things have happened. "any other questions" <-- Do you really feel that it is a good block when the correct reason for the block is not given and there is no link provided to the person who leaves the block message on the blocked person's talk page? Do you really think this is the routine way to do an indef block? If you consciously did not sign, why didn't you make sure that KC went back and signed? Both you and KC looked at that talk page many times ofter you placed the block template, but neither of you felt the need to provide a signature? Isn't part of blocking giving the reason for the block and allowing the blocked person to ask questions? I don't see how this can be a valid block when Moulton did not know the reason and had no link to a person who could explain what was going on. Can you explain your motivation for this and this? I don't understand the edit summary, "Enough silliness". Why did you return to Moulton's page in order to prevent him from using it? What was your interest in his case? Did someone else ask you to protect the page from editing? "I have no doubt that he was directly aware of the rationale for the block" <-- I do have doubt about that. What makes you think he understood what was happening to him? "an extraordinarily poor fit for Wikipedia" <-- Can you expand on this? How is it that someone tried to correct a biased BLP and you label them a "poor fit for Wikipedia"? We must get BLPs right, so we are supposed to listen to people who explain that a BLP is biased. Did you evaluate Moulton's argument before you slapped the indef block on him? What was the rush to indef block Moulton? "Are you suggesting that because I endorsed another admin's block with the words 'Excellent call', that I've acted unprofessionally" <-- you've never explained how you reached the decision to indef block Moulton. It looks like KC asked you to endorse a bad block and you did so. Is there another way to interpret your actions? --JWSurf (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No one asked me to look at the RfC. No one asked me to endorse anyone's decision or validate anyone's block. No one asked me to leave the block notice. No one asked me to protect his talk page. No one "chatted" to me about anything, as I've never used IRC or any similar chatroom software. These were all judgements and actions I undertook independently because they seemed to me most consistent with the goals and policies of this website. Incidentally, that should be your null hypothesis; what evidence led you to reject it in favor of conspiracy theories? MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All I have to go on is the edit history and what you have told me. It seems to me that imposing an indefinite block on a non-vandal normally involves having a significant amount of familiarity with the blocked editor's history and some discussion of the matter with other editors....and, as I said above, providing the correct reason for the block and a signature on the block notice. In the absence of evidence for any of these, what you suggest as the null hypothesis did not seem to fit the evidence available to me...for example, I still do not know how you noticed and took an interest in Moulton. I did not reject the null hypothesis, but alternative hypotheses came to mind and I've been asking questions, trying to understand what happened. You asked me, "I'm curious why you think she would do that?" I don't know why she would indef block and not post the reason on the blocked editor's talk page. I'm stumped. You invited me to ask questions, so I've been trying to reconstruct a coherent narrative of events. Based on the evidence available to me, the first hypothesis that came to mind was that a group of editors had been studying Moulton's editing and discussing how to respond to him. Now you have informed me that you did not participate in any chat discussions with other editors. It also seems possible that you had individually spent some time looking at Moulton's editing history, so that's why asked if could could provide another way to interpret your actions. Do you remember when you first began to study Moulton's edit history? Can you estimate how much time you spent reviewing Moulton's editing history? Also, I still don't understand why you returned to protect Moulton's page from editing. --JWSurf (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And MastCell, have you stopped beating your wife? (More at WP:BAIT.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was that your effort to construct a coherent narrative did not involve asking the participants for their perspectives. Again, you speculate about KillerChihuahua's motivation: have you asked her why she did X, Y, or Z? That's typically among the first steps in any investigation.

I suspect I became aware of Moulton because I have other editors' talk pages watchlisted and I noticed discussion or posts from Moulton there. I have no idea how long I spent thinking about his editing, but it's time that I would like back. As to why I protected his page, this may answer your question. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to talk with me! --JWSurf (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. In the future, if you have a question about some of my actions, I'm happy to discuss them and respond to questions about them. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Davkal Sock

There's a new Davkal Sock. Can you help? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure - can you point me in the right direction? MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you have a look at this SSP report? I filed it a few days ago, but it looks like there aren't any admins watching that noticeboard or something. Anyways the (suspected) sock has not been back since, but it's pretty obviously a sock that was created to evade an indef block, so, it seems to me that it should be blocked. Yilloslime (t) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SSP#User:Aeronbrau looks a lot like Davkal. For instance, their first contribution was to Talk:Parapsychology, and includes such gems as On many occasions SA has miscited material and After all, it's SA's opinion and it therefore must be right - even if nobody else is clever enough to know this or to have written it. Good luck. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of 83.249.240.108

I just unblocked after a scan found no evidence that IP was an open proxy. Since the user's unblock request accused you of having done this because of what he was saying about you, I have to ask you what evidence you had that led you to believe the IP was an open proxy. Given his claim of involvement in a content dispute with you at a registered account, I really want to hear (well, read) what you have to say. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. It was actually user:ChrisO's behaviour that I had complaints over. Although, this admin blocked me just a short time after ChrisO noticed my complaints, citing reasons which were not true. This led me to believe that MastCell blocked me for complaining over ChrisO --83.249.240.108 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's an anonymizing IP which lacks reverse DNS information; the editor using the IP appeared not to be a new user and was using the IP in a manner I thought was inappropriate. I do not see where he "claimed a registered account" - am I missing something? I suspect that this IP editor does have a registered account, but I have no idea what that account is or what "involvement" I'm said to have had. Daniel, did you independently look into that claim or accept it at face value? Actually, I see the IP's clarification. I'm not going to argue the unblock, but I can't say I think the project is well-served by editors socking with anonymizing IP's. Am I missing something? MastCell ^Talk 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved recently. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Constance Congdon

Hi - I was going to create an article on this playwright but I see that you deleted one last year. If I'd known that the article had existed but had been deleted for reasons to do with WP:Notability I would have been in a position to improve it, being a professional admirer of her work. I didn't raise any objection to the article's deletion at the time because I wasn't keeping track of it, and I didn't know that it had been proposed for deletion - if I had known, I would have objected. She is not all that well-known, but Tony Kushner for one has written in fulsome praise of her stuff. Info on her is not very easy to find, but she is certainly notable in the wikipedian sense. If you restore the article it would save me the bother of starting again from scratch, and I could provide some references. Thanks. Lexo (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I've responded on your talk page - I'd be happy to help. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Friendly unsolicited advice

Re your comments at the Omnibus Arbcom, there are lots of people there who are crazed for BLOODBLOODBLOOD so best to stay the hell away from there if you value your sanity. (Whether you value your sanity is entirely up to you.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since they already got your blood (or you drained it before they could suck it out of you), why don't you comment for all of us. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Man... everyone is so serious. You'd think we were trying to cure cancer or something. I'm surprised I wasn't blocked a month or so ago for rickrolling on the case talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

I've put on the talk page a plea for the simple consensus version we all agreed on for a week until two days ago. I saw you thought it got convoluted as well. What do you think?GreekParadise (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it. To be honest, I'm losing interest a bit; the paragraph is unreadable, but there appears to be a vested interest in maintaining it that way. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Assuming, for the moment, that I want to do slightly more in the way of pulling my weight around here, and at least helping out a little on POV edit-warrior magnets like Sarah Palin or Barak Obama, I could do with a little reality-based guidance. I know what the article probation "says", I'm curious what it actually "means" really. For example, the block I made yesterday was easy; they'd been warned, they were clearly edit warring, and it was for 24 hours; pretty standard. However, do I read the article probation wording correctly that as long as I don't go nuts, I can use my discretion a little more freely than normal in these cases? For example, if someone violates the article probation once, gets blocked, comes back, and resumes problematic behavior, can I unilaterally ban them from the page for a couple of months, (and if they come back, indef block right away)? Or is that overstepping and likely to cause me grief? If I'm going to have to block for 24hrs, then 48, then 72, then a week, then 2 weeks, then a month... well, then I just won't try to pull my own weight after all. I trust my own judgement enough so that if my only limitation is that normal non-POV pushing people won't think I've gone to far, I'll wade in, but if I have to mollycoddle, I won't. For example, I just reblocked User:Redrumracer after his previous block expired, even though he hadn't edited since, based on a lack of tolerance for POV socks; was that overstepping because I didn't discuss with the previous blocking admin, or because he wasn't given another chance? --barneca (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two pence from the peanut gallery. I think that the probation for the Obama article is meant to serve as a serious warning to anybody notified, and to encourage admins to be a bit more free with their tool use - but always using sound judgment and looking at the overall effect of the editor's contributions. I also think the community ought to be as explicit about putting Palin related articles on probation. I personally tend to be very restrained about using the blocking tool, but am believing it should be much more extensively used on the various partisan SPAs infesting these articles. I'm not in as much favor of using that tool on experienced editors who are trying to deal with the SPAs. GRBerry 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no black-and-white answer. Article probation enhances the power of individual admins' discretion. This works well if your discretion matches up with community expectations, and not so well otherwise (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka). Ideally, it should mean less wikilawyering, and that the balance has shifted toward policy enforcement and away from everyone-has-the-right-to-4-escalating-warnings-followed-by-16-slowly-escalating-blocks. Personally, I try to give admins enforcing "probation" or "discretionary sanctions" wide latitude, because second-guessing their every move makes the probation worthless.

I think your judgement is good. You can impose article or topic bans under terms of the probation, but I typically send these to WP:AN/I for review immediately after I place them. That gives you a sanity check (not that AN/I is particularly sane) as well as some cover. Basically, you should feel empowered to do what you think is necessary upfront, but as always if you're questioning whether a specific action was overreaching, then proactively send it to AN/I or at least get a sanity check from an uninvolved editor. I think the block of Redrumracer was fine, but recognize that I've been told I'm very quick on the trigger so maybe others would be less happy about it. I'd suggest that you leave a note on his talk page indicating that if he agrees to discuss on the talk page, cease edit-warring, and take a look at the relevant policy pages before editing, that you would unblock him. This doesn't cost much, and if he resumes the same behavior it's easy enough to reblock.

To sum up, probation means that the community has decided that a strong hand is needed. You should feel justified in doing what seems appropriate - after all, you've been through the vetting process - but be sensitive to signs that "normal", established editors think you're overreaching, and have a low threshold for proactively seeking feedback on decisions. I've seen the mob turn on an admin pretty quickly, and "bold" actions can look foolhardy to armchair QB's :) I say that not to discourage you, but to emphasize the importance of getting explicit review and sanity checks upfront when in doubt. Since AN/I is a bit disorderly in the best of times, I find it most useful to impose the remedy first and then submit it to AN/I for review; if you go to AN/I and ask an open-ended what-should-be-done question, it will never go anywhere.

That's my philosophy, for what it's worth. Don't feel like you need to pull a huge load on your own at Sarah Palin or Barack Obama; I tried that, as have others, and it leads to burnout pretty quickly. Good luck. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what MastCell says, but I'm not quite as optimistic about AN/I as he is. I've had good luck with "here is what I did, if anyone is willing to put in the additional work required to do better, my blessings on doing it and reversing my action". That good luck hasn't yet included anyone actually doing the extra work, but my taking that position sure muted the grumbling about people saying trying other things - especially when I came back with "as I said, please go do the work, that would be more valuable than commenting from the peanut gallery". GRBerry 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. I certainly don't plan on pulling a huge load and burning out; I don't edit frequently enough for that. But I'll keep an eye out and intervene where I think it wise. --barneca (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

palin quotes

see here cheers Tvoz/talk 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, every now and then I try to just read the Palin article to see if it makes sense as a whole. It's much more useful than trying to track specific edits and changes. That particular content-to-citation disconnect jumped out at me. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work on Palin

Just a heads up that Hobartimus may have violated 3RR, but I wouldn't actually want to throw the book at them because I think it was in good faith. See my talk page for details. I put a complaint on their talk page, which they deleted, as is their right. Homunq (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(Also, I know I shouldn't be, but I have to be happy when you stand up for Democrats when the talk page goes off-topic)Homunq (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I could take a look, but I'm certainly involved enough on the page that I'm not about to block anyone or anything. I think you guys are on the right track by de-escalating and trying to find common ground. I do think BLP is a bit overused on this particular page as a justification for edit-warring, but that's just me. Personally, I think the whole Bridge thing is more trouble than it's worth - no reader is going to really care whether it mentions Wasilla or not, and it just creates bad feeling among editors.

I do feel bad when I contribute to off-topic chatter on the talk page, but sometimes I can't resist. I do have my political leanings, ideas, and so forth, which I assume are fairly obvious, but my overarching pet peeve is silly partisan talking points, and they seem to creep into the discussion there from time to time. MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also stopped to say thank you. While I agree that the Bridges to Nowhere "talkstorm" may be a waste of time and effort, GreekParadise deserves support. (I Do think it should mention Anchorage and nearby Wasila.) It is obvious partisanship to exclude it. The continued effort to rule the roost by other editors that were editing the Sarah Palin article 5 weeks before she accepted is playing havoc with any sense of neutrality. They are devisive and rude. But, I am proud of the fact that, most times, we stay on point. It is a marathon. Glad you're in the race.--Buster7 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any interest in fighting a battle. I think the Bridges should be mentioned, briefly, but I also think a lot of the detail (Anchorage/Wasilla, etc) belongs in subarticles and not in the Palin biography. I think it's tempting to see partisanship in every argument or edit, and I have no doubt it is a dominant motivation for some editors there. Still, I think there are a lot of good editors there; progress can be made; and the lower the rhetorical temperature, the more likely that is to happen.

The challenge is that appropriate weight changes by the day or week. For a time, the Bridge To Nowhere was really the top (or among the top few) Palin-related stories. Now it's taking a bit of a backseat, so perhaps abrdiging the coverage and moving some detail to the subarticles is appropriate. I don't want to see it excised, or see the public reaction to the campaign's claims bowdlerized, but I also don't think the reader is well-served by cramming in every possible detail and beating the drum about it—most readers are sophisticated enough to realize when they're being led by the nose. Anyhow, I've seen real progress in the article and the editing environment over the past few weeks, so I'm hopeful. Keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have it watchlisted, but I tend to ignore it. The quote looks fine, although I'm a bit chagrined that I used the adverb "Freudianly"—I think I could have done better, but you can't turn back the clock :) I'll take a look at the discussion; to be honest, I feel like I've said the same thing a few dozen times now, so either I'm not expressing it clearly or people just don't agree. Anyhow, thanks for "canvassing" me. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi back

Thanks, though I'm afraid I've been failing to contribute very much lately. It's good to know there are people like you keeping an eye on things. Keep up the good work! Trezatium (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a word...

... with Kelly (talk · contribs)? See [8], [9]... just as we are engaged in an editorial dispute at Sarah Palin... Oh well... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have much influence there, but let me see what can be done. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. See also User_talk:Kelly#What_is_this.3F ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look this over

Please look at this discussion and this comment in it by Flatterworld, and please tell me whether or not Flatterworld is suddenly escalating the heat and incivility of that discussion from 0-60 in half a second. I have responded badly to his previous escalations, several months ago on that page, but I'd prefer to concentrate on the topic if I can, and discuss in a calm way the merits based on the policies and the new facts in the sources, and it's increasingly hard to do so faced with that kind of sudden assault. I wouldn't mind so much if this occured immediately after a heated discussion, but this is the first time he's interacted with me other than something brief and civil more than a week ago at the Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC (see "Statement by Flatterworld" and my response in the subsection below it). Please tell him that it's a very bad idea to escalate like that, and I'll concentrate on the discussion. -- Noroton (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Flatterworld has complained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Noroton. I'll be away from the keyboard for the next 9 hours or maybe 20 hours, depending on how tired I am tonight, so no hurry, but I think Flatterworld will just start up again later. Maybe it will all be resolved over at AN/I. -- Noroton (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try to take a look, though I've been away from those articles for some time and I don't know how much time I'll have before Monday. It looks like the Ayers page was protected temporarily, which is probably for the best. I haven't interacted with Flatterworld, but certainly my general impression of you is favorable based on your history working on some tough areas. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

TranslationHeretic Calling

What's the next step?--TranslationHeretic (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... the next step is that you tell me who you are, why you're on my talkpage, and what I can do for you. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You blocked URL Translation, and I am the quality analyst consultant. What is the next step for progressing up Wikipedia's quality assessment scale, from the present B-Class quality rating upwards, as put forward for discussion. What's your roadmap? --TranslationHeretic (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I interpret this to mean that you are a sockpuppet of Eurominuteman (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked user whose block evasion with IP's led Talk:Translation to be semiprotected. I think the roadmap is pretty clear. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Davkal using spoofing from Indonesia

Probably anyway: User:216.245.208.61. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear. Can you just block the open proxy? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sourced content from article under Afd

For example here [10] and here [11] one time with the edit summary, "newsfactor is not a good WP:BLP source" without any explanation how it's not a good source, link to consensus where it was established etc. In the other edit summary with the claim that [12] appearing in the "Today @ PC World" section of the magazine is a blog. The article from PC World was tracked by Google News. The "Blog" seems to fit the definition given at WP:V [13] "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.")." almost 100%. The article making no extraordinary claim also referenced Wired.Com so it would have been very easy to find an alternative source and retain the content. After these deletions [14] you voted delete in the Afd. This is the point where I'm confused. From one hand with your vote you make a statement "no need to improve the article let's delete it instead of improving it" and on the other hand you make edits to it, deletions, which are supposed to do exactly that, to improve the article. I wanted to ask if this is standard practice during Afds, you deleted about 25 percent of the article. If this is common practice, one other person and it would be at 50% already and so on not even giving a chance for Afd participants to actually see the article they comment about. Hobartimus (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is standard practice to remove poorly sourced, potentially contentious material about living people wherever it is encountered. The fact that an article is up for AfD does not justify the persistence of WP:BLP violations. Good sources exist (the AP, other reputable news outlets), so I fail to see the necessity to cram in material from the PCWorld blog and NewsFactor, which is a technology trade industry publication as best I can tell. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Would this [15] be also considered a blog by your standard? I'd be willing to improve the article but with deletion coming in a few days I'm not sure it's worth it if you are willing to challange sourced content to this high degree. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a blog, by any standard. It's hosted by Wired, so it falls under the "may be acceptable" clause of WP:BLP. My objection is a bit more global; we are racing to base our coverage on rumors reported in these and other blogs (the Wired one you cite even explicitly notes that they have no idea what actually happened). Instead, we should hang back a bit and base our coverage on better sources. This is a WP:BLP of a private individual who may, or may not, have done something illegal. I think the spirit and meaning of WP:BLP is that we be a bit more conservative (NPI) and encyclopedic, and in less of an unseemly rush to insert the latest rumor, even when that rumor is posted in a borderline-acceptable blog. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pan Penn for Palin

I am with you, against inclusion of the Mark Penn thing. It is trivial at best. btw love your Strangeglove userbox. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I'll open a discussion thread about it on the Palin talk page. Thanks for the compliments on the userbox; you're welcome to steal it if you like. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Advice

First off, thanks for your feed back both here and on ANI. I wish people would stop pussy footing around, when I put up my actions for review, I fully expect advice, criticism, and discussion. So in other words, please do comment and advise, and I genuinely thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Onto the thrust of the issue:

On the issue of the ultimatum, I have a few thoughts. The first of which is this seems to be very much a result of two and half years away. Way back when, when a posting is found unacceptable, a user is told to remove it. Sometimes "asked" but always in a way that shows its not an at your convince request, but a request from an administrator dealing with a conduct issue. Or rather, that is how I remember it. The comment by Kelly in question to me fell under the category of "unacceptable statement." To me that outright deserves a block, but as per my own personal policy, and what I thought was the general decorum on Wikipedia, I warned the user. One of the dicier parts was the tone and the 10 minute time limit. The tone I will admit to. Kicking editors when they're down is not OK, and threatens to disrupt what little cooperative atmosphere exists on controversial articles, and I am not prone to being nice and flowery on what I see as an egregious issue. The ten minute part was a way of saying "I'm not kidding, I'm not waiting, you're active now, do it now." Aside from the short time limit, this falls within what I think of as a reasonable offer to a person to undo an offense before they are blocked for it.

Is it a threat? I guess so. A complicating factor was Kelly's conduct in the past on the related issue (ID Cabal nonsense) and with myself and other admins in general (3RR, Sarah Palin, checkuser, the civility nightmare that is Kelly's talk page archives and removed notices). All of those things suggested to me that polite asking was not solving the crux of the issue: a persistent pattern of incivility (or at least a lack of decorum). So I guess I never really thought to make sure I had de-escalate the situation. I didn't discard the idea out of hand, it just never came up, to me the situation had already escalated to the point where Kelly had made a blockable offense, a sort of disruptive incivility that had crossed the line.

As for face saving, I'm of two minds. I have no problem letting people save face when the substance of the issue is unchanged, but to me civility is not negotiable: its demanded. In my mind, I still think that Kelly "should" have backed down, no matter the so called humiliation. He screwed up, and not a few other people pointed that out in the block review.

And yes, the "involved admin" nonsense annoyed me. I would've preferred at least to be asked for my side of the story before we had a cascade of unblock requests and one call for my sanctioning on being an "involved admin.

TL;DR: thanks for the advice, I will keep it in mind and try to square it with the reasoning I used when I did it, and come up with sommething better.

With respect, --Tznkai (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Martin J. Walker

An editor has asked for a deletion of Martin J. Walker. Since you participated in the deletion review discussion for this article as recently as March 2008, you might want to participate in the current deletion proposal. Sam Weller (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment

at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Worker.27s_comp_.22tangential.22_to_PSC_dismissal.3F. Am posting this for you and ferrylodge to get somebody from "either side". I'll be offline for the next week, so I'll trust you to implement any consensus that develops. Homunq (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When have Ferrylodge and I ever been on opposite sides of anything? :) I can look through, but I prefer to limit how many Palin-related debates I'm involved in at any given time, for my own sanity, so I cannot promise anything. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser question

You say rather assertively "Kelly is no one's sockpuppet." Has that been confirmed? Not that I think it's appropriate to start throwing around accusations without concrete evidence (like Kelly appeared to at GreekParadise's checkuser here) but let's not blind ourselves to certain possibilities. I would not be surprised in the slightest to learn that several editors involved at Sarah Palin besides GreekParadise over the last few weeks were indeed sockpuppets.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, or I should say likely, that some of the editors at Sarah Palin are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets (the same has been true at the Obama pages for quite some time). However, I see absolutely no reason to suspect that Kelly is doing so, and I tend to be overly suspicious, if anything, where sockpuppetry is concerned. Checkuser cannot prove the absolute absence of sockpuppetry—it's merely a piece of circumstantial technical evidence, though sometimes it's quite conclusive—so what you're getting is my considered opinion, nothing more or less. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Link

I provided a link at ANI. — Realist² 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kotra and myself seem to be in agreement that a restriction on sexuality articles is is the best route at this point. — Realist² 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist, that may be so. However, please do not speak for me on my behalf like you have been doing on your posts. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been given any solutions nor have I decided on any solution. Caden S (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Decision

I'm flattered by your confidence in me, but I am sort of inexperienced when it comes to meting out restrictions on users. I don't entirely understand the concept of "topic restriction" (I know basically what they are, but not how they work exactly). I also feel a bit conflicted due to my role as Adopter. So I would prefer if an uninvolved administrator or experienced user could decide instead. My basic opinion is that I would like to see some sort of solution wherein CadenS could continue to edit sexuality-related articles - in a peaceful way - but I don't know what exactly that would be. If a topic restriction is necessary, I wouldn't be opposed to it. A block I think would be inappropriate at this time. Other than that, I don't know what options are available. Could you or another experienced editor advise? Sorry to essentially toss the hot potato back to you. -kotra (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have posted a comment summarizing my view of the options available here. If you have any opinion, your comment there would be appreciated. Thanks for your past input and help in any case. -kotra (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alex Avery (researcher)

There's an IP editing this page who keeps inserting the erroneous statement that the FDA says "that there is no evidence organic foods are healthier or more nutritious". This is not supported by the reference he cites, and to the best of my knowledge the FDA has no position on organic food. The editor is also trying to pass off the "British Nutrition Foundation" as the UK equivalent of the FDA or USDA, when in fact, it's just some minor non-profit. Anyways, I'm at my 3RR limit--would you mind having a look? Yilloslime (t) 18:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought: BNF smells link astroturf[16]. Yilloslime (t) 18:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the page. Hopefully it's just a matter of a new editor unfamiliar with our verifiability requirements. If it starts to look more like a tendentious editor willfully ignoring our verifiability requirements, I'll take action. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)