User talk:MastCell/Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Hello, MastCell. I noticed that you recently blocked the anonymous user at 70.110.190.189 (the user in question has also edited from other 70.* addresses, and as User:Stevewk)- I just wanted to alert you that he appears to have returned, recognizable from his hostile edit warring pattern and pages of interest, as User:Gwilmont. I wasn't sure of the right avenue to pursue to deal with this problem, so I figured you might be able to advise me on it. I've been away from the Wikipedia project for a while and am trying to get reacquainted. Thanks. --ForbiddenWord 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An obvious sockpuppet; I've blocked the account indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply! You're the man, MastCell! :) --ForbiddenWord 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You invited comment on your block of User:Ionas68224. Although the user's behavior might fairly be described as trolling and might merit a block under other circumstances, I think we should be extremely reluctant to block anyone based on comments on an admin RfC. In the interest of transparency and accountability, which I mentioned in my outside view on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong, we should bend over backward to ensure that criticisms of admins may be aired. Having some junk on the RfC page is an acceptable price to pay. Therefore, I don't agree with your block in that it was apparently based on the user's comments on that page. I haven't looked at the user's emails or edits to other pages. JamesMLane t c 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, and that's one reason I wanted to invite comment on the block. I have a slightly different take: RfC's are intended to gather community input, but as they single out a user for criticism they can turn into free-for-alls. There's recently been discussion about the number of productive users we've lost by being overly tolerant of clear harassment; perhaps that's influenced my take on the situation. I don't have a problem with him, or anyone, being critical. But it defeats the purpose of the RfC to have a huge sideshow created by someone who's basically shouting, "Hey, look at me! You're all Leninists! I hate the Kabbal [sic]! I mentioned Daniel Brandt! Here's a Wikipedia Review link!" I just don't see a lot of constructive input there. I won't get into the emails or post-block contributions, because I hate it when admins justify a block by pointing to the user's behavior after the block. I am sensitive to the need for transparency and accountability; in fact, just today I complained on AN/I about the deletion of what seemed to be a properly certified RfC, so I'm wondering if I'm being consistent here. MastCell ^Talk 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that we certainly don't want to lose productive users because of harassment. On the other hand, admins have to expect a certain level of harassment. Those who don't want to be scrutinized in their use of the special admin tools shouldn't ask to be given those tools (or should relinquish them); they can contribute productively without being admins. I would definitely apply a different standard to admins. It's important to have a check on possible abuse of admin powers. From the point of view of the project, it's also problematic to impede criticism of admins, precisely because that provides ammunition to those who charge "Leninism" or who see a cabal. JamesMLane t c 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; in fact, one of the concerns I raised at Ryulong's RfC was that of being overly sensitive to criticism. Certainly Ryulong's use of the tools is being scrutinized. I'm generally a big believer in accountability and such for admins. But that particular contributor, in my judgement, went beyond criticism or demanding accountability to simply trying to generate controversy for its own sake. Allowing and encouraging feedback, accountability, and constructive criticism of admins doesn't mean that we need to tolerate people who appear to be acting in bad faith or solely to generate controversy and get a rise out of people. Again, it's a judgement call. If another admin thought it appropriate to unblock him, I would be fine with that. An alternative, since his requests have already been declined here and on unblock-en-l, is to post this situation to AN/I in the interest of getting community feedback and accountability for me in terms of the block. I'd also be fine with that. Right now, though, given his behavior immediately before and after the block, I don't feel it would be appropriate to unblock him myself. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If I were an admin, I would've unblocked him, but I'm certainly not going to take the time to post it to AN/I. One reason I'm not an admin is that I don't want to spend time on stuff like that.  :) JamesMLane t c 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was reading through the article talk page here, and referred myself back to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines to see if the sort of content under the section "Most selective? Discuss" was appropriate and what the guidelines where for removing text which constitutes a personal attack, and misrepresents other people. The guidelines also say in bold at the top of the page "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". I wondered what advice you have on this? The guidelines on removing text from talk pages seem to be contrary to the guidelines on how talk pages should be used. Should I go ahead and archive the off-topic discussion about selection? Coldmachine^Talk 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear what the best approach is when an article talk page degenerates into random speculation, off-topic discussion, etc. Clearly the talk pages are meant to be used to discuss concrete improvements to the article, and not as a discussion forum on it (that's what USENET is for). In general, removing text from talk pages is a pretty drastic step. You can warn the ofending party with {{uw-chat1}} through uw-chat4. You can gently but firmly try to redirect them. Often this is enough. If it's not, then you can consider removing or archiving blatantly inflammatory or off-topic posts, but this is often a controversial action. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I wasn't even referring to you. While I disagree with you wholeheartedly, and loathe your editing, I perceive you as one of the cooler, more reasonable heads. For one thing, if you examine the record, I've been accused of the same things: bias, being misleading, advocacy, and so forth. I've even had Holy Scripture hurled at me, accusing me of damnable hypocrisy. I do, though, wish that you would see that accusations of bias and misleading contributions do not rise to the level of WP:NPA. What it does mean is that you are (or I am, whoever the object is) allegedly guilty of poor editing, and -- yes -- even of motives borne out of personal interest(s). I do think you are abusing the "good faith" assumption -- but you aren't the only one. You cannot make deliberately misleading edits and/or contributions (saying far more than the source does) under cover of "good faith". Chido6d 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MastCell - how is the article on statins coming? Wiseoldowl 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around to working on it yet - in fact, I don't think I've made a single edit there since we last spoke. Amazing how many things come up around here... MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We should probably do CML first, and then acquiesce to Wiseoldowl's request[1]. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Pleased! Wiseoldowl 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at political correctness. From my perspective, this article was in pretty good shape until recently, but has come under attack from a couple of determined POV-pushers, similar to problems encountered in Passive smoking and elsewhere. Of course, YMMV. JQ 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. I'm sure that article is a magnet for POV-pushing. MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the proposal. Perhaps you would consider revising your own vote on the AfD page? For example: "Merge and redirect to Human rights in China, and failing that, (H1.b)". In any case, I appreciate your consideration. HG | Talk 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been threatened with being blocked from editing by the above user, who has taken little part in the discussions apart from criticising my seriousness. This, he says, is because I continually revert and there is a revert war on this page.

By my count I have reverted twice today, and once yesterday, and that's it, in months! If this is a revert war, then I'm not in it, am I? Can I have an appology? I never break the 3-revert rule, and three reverts in two months represents restraint by most peoples standards? --Memestream 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply making you aware of the three-revert rule, if you weren't already. The other involved editors are already aware of it, but I didn't see confirmation that you had been apprised. You are, indeed, involved in an edit war. I'd suggest discussing your proposed additions a little further rather than reinserting them, as they seem to be meeting resistance from several other editors. Three reverts is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the bottom line is that edit-warring is bad, and the onus is on editors who want to add content to justify it. I'm not threatening to block anyone at the moment; I just want to be sure you're aware of our policies on edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the bottom line is that reverting is not to be used to remove additional material, no matter how much it may appear POV. My careful contribution has been repeatedly deleted by reverting, and that is a clear contravention of the rules which say discuss and change but do not revert. Revert is for vandalism, which this is most certainly not - never for taking out material. You seem to consider me naive. Read the rules (as copied by me onto Political correctness and then tell me that they do not say this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memestream (talk • contribs).

Edits which violate Wikipedia's policies are reverted all the time - it's not just vandalism. Bottom line: you need to work toward consensus on the talk page. Engaging in an edit war is not going to have the effect you want. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No. While the general sentiment is correct, and exactly what I have been formost in doing, with support from another editor who treads carefully now after the page was improperly protected to shut him up, the use of revert that you suggest is strictly against policy:

• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. MERE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SUCH PROOF.

• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

Which bit of this do you not get? --Memestream 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing further with you. Read WP:EW and don't edit war. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell please check out the editing at Evolution and Talk:Evolution. This individual also engaged in a personal attack here, which was rather strange. I think we have a problem with this user. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember when I told you I could spot a sockpuppet? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Think it's Raspor (talk · contribs)? MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

VacuousPoet (talk · contribs) and ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs). Exactly the same editing style. I'm trying to complete a FAC for Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, so I'm not paying attention to other articles too carefully, but I got involved when I saw a large number of odd edits to Evolution. The editing style and comments remind me of what I've observed previously, specifically at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy and the article itself. The claims to being a scientist, then completely missing the point of science is exactly the same. I need to do further research, but it would take me a day to build an appropriate case. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for protecting G-Unit, its been real annoying having to revert vandalism every 10 minutes every day all day. Thanks again! --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You can always try WP:RFPP if it flares up again after this round of semiprotection expires. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WHICH PAGE CAN I CREATE?! I wanted to create an article about my profile on YouTube!KiaraFan13 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Spooner appears to be the most recent. A ham-handed checkuser request seems to have got him off the hook for now. The endless-edit style is gone, for now, but it was also a matter of very public record that this was a tell-tale. The content of the edits is all too familiar. You've shown some interest in this case in the past. Thanks for that. For myself, I'm seriously considering moving my efforts to other encyclopedia sites. Wikipedia seems destined to be primarily a source of misinformation in my areas of interest and expertise. FWIW. Libertatia 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I remain unconvinced, but, sockpuppet or meatpuppet, we're looking at a concerted campaign to tie up certain articles, exclude or marginalize tendencies, force inappropriate definitions on articles and generally game Wikipedia for ideological purposes. Because Wikipedia policies not only assume no expertise but actively discourage real expertise, elevating secondary and even tertiary sources over primary source material, any relatively open or ideologically contested field is going to be subject to these sorts of problems. It's built into the system, so I'm not sure conflict resolution is likely to do anything except support the (in my mind) disruptive tendency. Anyway, thanks for the work and sorry about the rant. Libertatia 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A user you blocked August 2 and apparently received abusive Email from, Ionas68224 is likely trying to bypass his block using the account Jdmorrison. The user seems to have gotten his new account blocked from 24 hours already for continuing his activities and is an admitted vandal from when he editted from IPs. The user included the iw: link on his Simple: userpage [2] to his new account. It may require a checkuser to verify the accounts are socks, but the edits are notably similar enough to leave little doubt that he is both accounts. Creol 02:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (simple:admin)

Yup, it's him. He's already been indefinitely blocked for trolling. MastCell ^Talk 15:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for sharing your information about Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology and for having unearthed the documents showing the close ties between this publication and the tobacco industry. These documents are illuminating, and they deserve to be made more visible and easily reachable for future reference. They are currently somehow difficult to locate, being deeply buried in a very long Talk page which contains a lot tedious discussions.

In passing, you may be interested to know (in case you didn't know already) that a somehow similar situation exists with the journal Inhalation Toxicology in which Enstrom and Kabat published their meta-analysis. The editor-in-chief of this journal, Donald E. Gardner, is a tobacco industry consultant who was recruited on behalf of Lorillard by the law firm Covington & Burling in 2000 (see [3], [4] and [5]). --Dessources 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling, based on the journal's name, that it was tied to the industry. By the way, at some point I'd like to create a set of articles on the International Society of the Built Environment and its journal, Indoor and Built Environment. This, as you probably know, is a well-documented example of a society and a journal created by the industry as an outlet for industry-friendly "research" which would not survive standard peer review. See, for example, PMID 15733724. I believe the society and journal are still operative; in any case, they were quite respectable to all appearances until the relevant documents were made public. If you're interested, let me know. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested. --Dessources 23:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job adminning so far! You're doing a brilliant job; we appreciate the hard work -- 205.211.160.1 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. Unfortunately it looks like User:Spartanad just blanked your blocking message. I'm hoping that we can still keep him/her from going completely over to the dark side. Notmyrealname 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that--that's what I understood the rule to be. I thought you could archive these things, but deleting warnings and such was not allowed. Now that a few other editors are involved, I think I'm going to check out of this whole thing for a little while in any case. Notmyrealname 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not coming off as petty, but a newly-minted user by the handle of Tteppupkcos just posted a comment [6] on the Talk:Arnoldo Aleman page that reads like something User:Spartanad would write. My concern is really that Spartanad might be using sockpuppets while on a block. Since you're the one who initiated the block, I'm posting this here. Notmyrealname 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely suspicious and worth keeping an eye on. If the user declares themselves as another single-purpose account pushing the same viewpoint, then I'd probably take action. For now, let's keep an eye on the account and the article. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again (and to sound like a tattler), but there's some recent activity on the Talk:Arnoldo Alemán page by anon IP addresses that seem suspiciously like sock puppets of Spartanad. One of the other editors has made substantial edits to address the legitimate concerns that were raised, but this user (users?) seem unsatisfied. They can't do much damage because of the semi-protect, but I'm concerned that things will degenerate quickly once the user gets back in action. Not sure if any action needs to or should be taken, but wanted to bring this to your attention. Notmyrealname 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Both IP's that I can see map to Atlanta, GA, making it highly likely that they're connected in real life. In any case, I think the semi-protection should stay for now. I'd just keep encouraging them to discuss their proposed changes on the talk page, bring new sources there, etc. Their non-interest in using the talk page, and insistence on editing the article itself, is a bit of a warning flag. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, they are both from Atlanta. On top of that they both have the same extremely contrarian views about a foreign ex-president in a country (the US) where most people do not know who the current Canadian PM is. Finally, if the IP were truly concerned, he would have posted a link to info on the talk page by now. Since that has not happened, I am inclined to believe that disruption occupies his mind and that protection is best. Brusegadi 18:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If the semiprotection expires and these or similar IP's begin editing disruptively, I would be happy to reinstate it. I try not to pre-emptively protect pages, though. The Canadian PM is Steven Harper? (I swear I didn't cheat and look it up). But I have to admit, I follow politics and I'd never heard of Aleman. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I dont know who the Canadian PM is!!!! Brusegadi 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell - thanks for your assistance in the past. I was wondering if you can assist with a current dispute on an article. I am asking several admins to review a list of links for reliably. If you can simply take a moment and comment on those sources which are reliable enough for WP policy. Please see: User talk:Tiggerjay/Resolutions/1 Thanks in advance Tiggerjay 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Britney Spears' album sales, but the only sources on the list that look reliable are Time and Forbes. Those should definitely take precedence over the other sites of more dubious provenance if their numbers don't agree. MastCell ^Talk 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm no expert either, somehow I got caughtup in the edit war while RC Patrolling. :) So I decided to dive in a see if I could help facilitate a consensus. Tiggerjay 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciated your comments on the China AfD. Trying to sort out what I've learned. Perhaps you could give me some feedback on the framework, tone and content of my effort at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Exploring the grounds for a consensus. Please reply on there or on my Talk, as you deem appropriate, or let me know if you'd rather not. Thanks! HG | Talk 12:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, do you know what kind of articles I can type? KiaraFan13 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my earlier response on your talk page, describing the criteria that new articles need to meet. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the support on this. All Znypes' socks were blocked indefinitely a while back but this one was not for some reason.... figured I'd give him/her the benefit of the doubt at least for a while, but the Love Train has officially stopped. I'll be on the lookout for "new" user names from this person, too. See ya! - eo 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I did confuse your recent indefinite block with a previous "month long". The sock is still blocked now anyway. Regards, --Asterion^talk 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for blocking user:anoshirawan, but i think it's not enough because he/she will resume vandalising pages as soon as his block expires. this individual is not here to contribute but is here to vandalise all articles that he/she doesn't like. his/her's history has no contribution but just vandalising articles, especially those related to afghanistan. he/she believes that there is no afghanistan and that all the history of afghanistan should be history of iran. it's bizarre thinking but this is how all vandals think. i believe blocking anoshirawan permanently is the only solution, thanks.Mirrori1 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If they continue their behavior after the block expires, then they'll be blocked for a signficantly longer period of time. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, he/she has a tag-team partner, user:beh-nam, both have same identical p.o.v's on every subject.Mirrori1 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

user:anoshirawan is back now, in edit-war with me and other users. i warned him/her about 3RR and not to remove sourced info but the user ignores. please, if you can, fully protect Hotaki dynasty, Durrani Empire, and Ahmad Shah Abdali articles. there is not much to be added to those articles and please revert user:anoshirawan ridiculous edits. thank you,Mirrori1 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

user:beh-nam was previously adding tags on user:anoshirawan's user page.--->check here!.Mirrori1 01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked Mirror to provide sources for the following article and he like the others ignored my sources and still removed them. I have nothing against Mirror or any of them but they cannot remove information that has more than one citations. I was blocked yesterday because of the 3RR but my information is not POV and it has been backed by sources always, for instance, In the Ahmad Shah Abdali article I provided numerous sources in english and Persian and they were removed by khampalak and Mirrori1, so I was forced to revert their vandalism. I hope you understand and these fake reports on me having close relations or a partnership with Behnam is not true. Thank you --Anoshirawan 08:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not made vague accusations of antisemitism against anyone. If you read what I wrote, it's readily clear that others have made this accusation, not me. As for the rest of your bloviation, I'm not interested, thanks. Tomer^talk 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be interested. Just don't do it again; it violates WP:NPA in a pretty major way. The diff is here, and it's obvious that you are making the accusation. Hiding behind the passive voice ("charges have been leveled") and then denying you've made the accusation doesn't reflect very well on you, either. MastCell ^Talk 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hiding. If you're interested enough in the situation, go look. The charges have been made. What is obvious is that you'd prefer to attempt to intimidate me, for whatever reason, a violation of WP:CIV based on your misinterpretation of what I said, violating WP:AGF in the process. Still more bloviating, which doesn't reflect very well on you, either. Tomer^talk 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't quote policy on civility and good faith to me after your previous comments. If you're going to sling serious charges around, it's incumbent on you to actually back them up, or stop making them. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have slung nothing, except the accusation that you are perhaps more interested in commenting on discussions you know little to nothing about, rather than in participating in them. You, on the other hand, have slung serious charges against me, with no other evidence than your complete misinterpretation, willful now, obviously, of what I said. In any case, I'm not interested in further discussion with you. Good bye. Tomer^talk 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the Twilight Zone. You charged other editors and admins, one named and others alluded to, with anti-Semitism [7] and provided no evidence, just bluster. Then you came here to spin your remarks and quote WP:CIV and WP:AGF to me when called on it. I'm fine with dropping this, so long as you don't make such egregious personal attacks without substantiation again. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

why was kiss kiss deleted it is the second single off the album, all other artists have pages for their singles. --FSX-2007 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It needs to have evidence of notability - see WP:MUSIC for guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you left a note on my talk page about a speedy deletion. Did I make that article? Was it just a redirect? No biggie either way. I don't remember it and it's not like me to make a spam page. Gil Gamesh 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I left the note for the wrong person. More on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you previously issued a block for similar behaviour, I thought you mind be interested to know that User:Jebbrady has resumed editing under this IP, as well as another IP at 208.253.158.36, all on the Herbert Armstrong article and related talk page. 24.6.65.83 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hello, MastCell. I am not the unnamed editor above, see Special:Contributions/24.6.65.83, but I am one of several admins & editors having problems with User:Jebbrady (his contribs) also. Despite formal WP:SOCK intervention and the gentle follow-up you did here on July 29, he still will not use the tilde signature. He is diluting his edit record (and his record of reproofs from admins) by spreading himself over several accounts instead of his named User:Jebbrady account, particularly 208.253.158.36 -- see example and discussion on Sarek's talkpage.

This is going to be really bothersome for the admins as we approach mediation / arbitration on the Herbert Armstrong page. (Earlier formal steps at WP:CONFLICT, including RFC, THIRD, and WQA have failed.) What, if anything, can be done? Is it something I could or should do (like a second formal sockpuppet complaint), or is it for an admin to handle? I don't understand why he refuses to log in after he's been asked so many times, unless it's deliberate. It's been explained to him why just typing "jebbrady" instead of the tildes is not enough. I am at a loss about how to work with someone like this, and so I haven't approached him about it again. It probably would be better received coming from an admin. -- Lisasmall 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and unblocking User:Jeeny. With it being a 10 hour block, I was afraid that the block would expire before anyone reviewed the case, which would leave a stain on Jeeny's block record. Looking forward, I think that the user knows to be more careful, and also knows that if he does lose track that he can recognize and amend the mistake. That's particularly good because the user realized plainly that he had slipped up but didn't know that he could still make up for it by self-revert. That article (and related) can be pretty tense at time, but hopefully we won't have to go through this again. The Behnam 04:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, re your deletion of my entry for F.S. Grimwade, I think you should restore it. He is an historically important figure, and as was indicated in the text, a member of a state legislature (see criteria quoted below). Also he has an extensive entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography (cited), indicating his importance and also the source for his dates.

thanks

"Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures."

Coughinink 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if your statement that the "scientific consensus" on global warming is beyond question is OR or not, but I have added data on a study of the published literature, which does not support your contention on this issue. People can agree or disagree on "scientific consensus" and global warming, but there is a lively debate on this subject, and deleting any reference or note to such debate to suit personal convictions would be wrong, in my opinion. - MSTCrow 23:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The scientific consensus itself is not beyond question - certainly there are still dissenters, and disagreement about specific predictions, etc. But the existence of a scientific consensus is well-supported. Calling it an "alleged scientific consensus" in the lead is POV, prejudicial, and inaccurate. If it's a matter of going around in circles about the definition of scientific consensus, then I'd favor something like "Inhofe is a critic of the widely accepted scientific belief that climate change..." MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The existence of consensus on the topic of climate change may be quite well supported. This does not mean that the other side is not just as well supported. Going by the published literature on climate change, Dr. Benny Peiser of John Moore University found that at most 1/3rd are in agreement with the "scientific consensus," and using an international study, German climate analyst Dennis Bray found that fewer than 1 in 10 climate scientists believe that climate change is primarily man made. I am not challenging the proposition that some believe there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming, but ignoring studies that would indicate the "scientific consensus" is a minority opinion would be wrong. Most people would not be aware of such things, and I think Wikipedia can help by presenting both sides of the issue, and not advocating one over the other, regardless of our personal viewpoints. I hope we can work together to ensure that all sides are aired, and presented in a non-biased fashion. - MSTCrow 00:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, you cited the Peiser paper, which if I understand correctly is from the early 1990's. You'll understand if I question its relevance in a discussion about whether a consensus exists today. There are a number of articles and POV forks dedicated to rehashing just these arguments. Surely on Jim Inhofe we can find a mutually acceptable wording which acknowledges the fact that most scientists and scientific organizations accept human activity as a cause of warming, rather than fighting the battle every time the term is mentioned? MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pesier paper was written shortly after, and in response to, the Naomi Oreskes paper of 2004, titled "Beyond the Ivory Tower, The Scientific Consensus on Climage Change." I hope this clears up the issue of temporal relevance, as the Oreskes paper is certainly a frequently cited paper in support of the existence of scientific consensus on the subject of human activity and climate change.

What wording would you suggest? - MSTCrow 00:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have located the Pesier paper for your perusal. It can be located at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm. The submission date is January 4th, 2005. - MSTCrow 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the paper by Dennis Bray, http://downloads.heartland.org/17407.pdf. I think you will find both to have mounted strong arguments against the Oreskes position. - MSTCrow 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Peiser "paper" is formatted as a letter to the editor of Science. Yet I can't find it on PubMed. Was this letter ever actually published by Science, or are you holding up an unpublished letter to the editor, formatted as if it had been published in Science, as a rebuttal to Oreskes? MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Peiser's paper was rejected. Note that in the interim even Peiser has acknowledged the existence of a consensus, though to save face he adds the obvious point that the consensus is not unanimous.[8] Raymond Arritt 03:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you, Raymond. I guess I assumed it had actually been published somewhere. I didn't expect a rejected paper to be cited as a reliable source, or as debunking a widely cited study. If that's where the bar is, though, I have a few papers of my own which were rejected by Science, which I'll start citing immediately. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I think we all have some of those. ;-) Raymond Arritt 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you aren't acting in good faith on this. The contents of the letter are still valid. First you supposed it was from the early 1990s, and therefore was not relevant. I have demonstrated that it dates from 2005. Now you have proposed another innovative reason to dismiss the dissenting viewpoint and research therein. If I send a letter stating "X = X," and publisher Y does not publish it, that doesn't affect the reality of the statement, or that such an argument has been made. You are taking the position that unless publisher Y prints "X = X," it is not true, and the proposition itself does not exist. You are also ignoring the abstract from the GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany. Per above, what is your proposed "mutually acceptable wording?" - MSTCrow 19:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary: the paper does not state anything as simple as "X=X". Any assessment of the scientific literature for "consensus" involves significant methodological questions as to which studies are included, how they are adjudicated, etc. Oreskes' methodology survived peer review and was published; Pesier's did not. That's very relevant, and dismissing the fact that his study hasn't been published as irrelevant, or not even bothering to mention it, also relevant. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to remove a comment I left where I commended Ted Frank on his editing that I don't think applies anymore, and he keeps re-adding it to is talk page. Can you please assist in this baby matter, and confirm to Ted that 1. he doesn't rule supreme over his discussion page; and 2. that I have a right to remove a comment I left, that now misrepresents me? Thank you. He was warned about behaving that way, removed the warning, left the comment.--David Shankbone 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest just striking it and leaving a second note that you no longer admire his editing. If he removes that and leaves only the praise behind, just let it go. Yes, he doesn't own his talk page, but fighting over such things is more trouble than it's worth (trust me, I've been down that road). MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you have dealt with some of the parties to this dispute, Mirrori1, Anoshirawan and User:Beh-nam. The RFC on the origin and ethnicity of the founder of the Hotaki dynasty are being conducted on the Hotaki dynasty talk page, as that is where a lot of the discussion of this issue has appeared. --Bejnar 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are once again removing well-sourced material without bothering to use the talk page ([9]). You may wish to re-read WP:BLP, particularly the section which states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." You may wish to tone down your constant complaints that well-sourced, mildly critical information is "defamatory", as they verge on a legal threat. There are avenues open to you if you disagree: you can go to the BLP noticeboard for outside opinions, or discuss things on the article talk page. If you continue to do neither of these and remove well-sourced content, that's a problem, and not a new one in your case, either. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

your assertion that I am removing material without using the talk page is a falsehood. Why don't you read the talk page ? My comment on the talk page was up before your unfounded revert. Also, you have removed a completely accurate section without any justification, where I have edited to comply with your suggestion.

Your comment about the AJPH editorial is flatly wrong, as set out above. THe paper does not state that Milloy's website is an example of such an approach- it merely states that numerous subjects are labelled as junkscience on the site. While there may be an inference to be drawn from the AJPH article, it is wrong to state the inference as a fact when the article does not. This is yet another example of you making incorrect edits to suit your point of view. Peroxisome 22:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can we centralize this in one place instead of cross-posting it? Preferably the article talk page? MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. KP Botany 02:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. It was nice to see a familiar name on the list, especially with such positive things to say about me :) Lyrl^Talk _C 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, sorry to bother you about something that's really past and finished, but I'd like to ask you something about an old block you did. Couple of weeks ago you blocked Hxseek (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry after this SSP report. I'm a bit concerned this user has been given a bit more of a rough ride during his newbie days than he deserved, and this block and the report that led up to it looks a lot like a part of a rather WP:BITEy operation on the part of a particular opponent, Ronz (talk · contribs), the instigator of the report. Point why I'm irritated about the block is that I simply cannot see any sockpuppetry: The identity of the accounts and the IP was obvious and never concealed. Without an element of attempted deception (faking support for one's opinions by others, passing off reverts as reverts by others etc.), how can there be abusive sockpuppetry? There was no element of block evasion either; none of the accounts or IPs apparently had been blocked previously so there was no block to evade; Ronz' claims to that effect seem to be simply false.

In short, I'm rather surprised he was blocked for 48 hours (apparently in conjunction with a charge of edit-warring, where not even a simple 3RR violation was claimed against him, and even if there had been one the normal sanction for a newbie would have been 12h at the most), and I'm even more surprised the block was later confirmed by another admin. Frankly, I must say I would surely have overturned it if I'd been active at the time. The reason why I'm opening this now is, the charge of allegedly proven sockpuppetry is apparently still being held against this guy as a weapon to slap him with by some people, and I'd very much appreciate it if we could give him some sort of rehabilitation. Could you take a look at the case and let me know what you think? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was quite surprised myself how suddenly he was blocked. However, if all the edits he made had been made from a single account he would have been blocked for 3RR. That's what I was claiming. Sorry no one asked for an explanation earlier, or I would have given it. --Ronz 02:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I now looked a bit more closely into Macedonia (region), apparently the article where he was supposed to be edit-warring prior to the blocks, and I see one borderline 3RR violation (three reverts on 22 July, the first at 18:18, and one more on 23 July in a composite edit made between 13:49 and 19:40). Newbie warning given after this fourth revert, and he then stopped and continued to make only one more edit the next day. That case was stale by the time the block was made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, Hxseek's explanation was that he accidentally opened two accounts as a typo ([10]). Which happens; people open an account with a name they like better, or they forget their password, etc. But these two accounts (User:Hxseek and User:Hxseeker) appeared to be used in tandem to edit the same articles, where the user was involved in an edit war. I considered that a misuse of alternate accounts - if the issue was a typo, then sticking to one account should have solved it. Alternating accounts on the same article seemed less appropriate.

Now, as to whether I should have blocked him as long as I did, perhaps that was overly WP:BITEy. Perhaps I should have warned him or used a shorter block time. Unfortunately, I can't undo that now, nor can I recall the exact mindset that led me to issue the 48-hour block more accurately than I have above.

As to rehabilitating him, I don't think his block log should stand as a black mark on his name if he's currently editing responsibly. As to the circumstances surrounding the sockpuppetry case, if there's a specific editor or editors who are giving him a hard time undeservedly, I'd be happy to discuss it with them. If you think he's behaving reasonably and those blocks are being unfairly held over his head, then let me know what I can do and I'll put my 2 cents in, to the effect that the blocks were borderline, that an experienced admin feels they were overkill, and that in any case his past behavior shouldn't be held against him if he's behaving. Not sure what else I can do at this point. MastCell ^Talk 15:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your comments, that should be okay for now. I've been talking with both sides today and I guess things are getting better. Just for future reference, I'd really recommend if any case like this should come up again, it doesn't make much sense to me to invoke WP:SOCK in cases of non-concealed double accounts, and I'd never block for those, especially not with newbies. I'm not sure if there's anything explicit in the policy about this case, but it just seems to be common sense to me. No intent at deception = no SOCK. I mean, edit-warring is edit-warring, sure, but it doesn't become any worse or better if you do it through one account or through two, as long as everybody else can clearly see what you're doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. By the way, if I could put in a plug for WP:SSP, we really need more admins working on that board, particularly experienced ones like yourself (if you don't have your hands full already). MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... see what you mean.... trouble is, I really ought to be still on a wikibreak... :) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Added a comment for Future Perfect over on his own talkpage re problems created by "non-concealed" sockpuppets being used to disperse and dilute an editor's record on contribs pages and on article history pages. -- Lisasmall 03:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

An anon IP has left a message on my Talkpage saying that User talk:69.148.72.155 is a sock puppet of User:Alterego269 - the anon didn't leave any evidence of this (so it may not be true)- but as you blocked User:Alterego269 I thought you should be made aware of this. Also perhaps you could tell me what an "FA Summary" is as two editors keep referring to this as justification for their edits but will not tell me what they are. Thanks. Kelpin 15:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you correctly placed an advert tag on TAXI (advertising agency). I have regularly cleaned this up since its creation. The problem is that it is being edited, almost certainly, by the company. I have just cleaned it up again. Would you please add it to your watch list and help me revert bad editing to my clean version which I expect shortly? I have not removed the advert tag - I'll leave it to you to decide whether this cleaner version is now encyclopaedic. I would add that User:Dman84 is clearly being used by the same person as operates User:209.171.84.178 that has already had one block. TerriersFan 19:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it as best I can. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MastCell,

Thanks for your pleasant message on my talk page. It would have also been polite to discuss, on the RealClimate talk page, why you thought my edits violated NPOV. I'm quite familiar with the policy. Without my edits, the article runs afoul of the policy: it is very one-sided, ignoring all of the controversy out there over this topic. I provided factual, cited, information about the controversies.

Rather than simply restore my edits, I've now begun a discussion in the RealClimate talk page. If you have something valuable to contribute, please do so. If not, I'll wait several days before restoring my edits. AFAIK, my work was properly NPOV... significantly improving the NPOV aspect of the article, which is about a far more controversial topic than perhaps you may be aware. Mr Pete 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I thought you'd be want to know this drama continues:

• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#independencia.net (permanent link)
  • Massive spamming across dozens of different Wikipedias by some of the same characters you dealt with in the Wiki En Wiki case. You'll see an entire sockpuppet army has turned out to dispute this and hassle editors involved.
• meta:Requests for CheckUser information#Possible sockpuppets at Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)
  • This is mostly a report about sockpuppetry on Meta-Wiki, however, it has implications here, since there are new accounts on en.wikipedia carrying on where the old ones left off (after being blocked).

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am perplexed as to why you deleted the article, given it clearly stated - and included an official, verifable source - that the song is next single release by Mika. It does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion.Rimmers 22:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It contained no assertion of notability that I could see. The existence of the song, or its upcoming release, isn't an assertion of notability. If you'd prefer to send it through AfD, then I suppose we could do that, although I don't see it fulfilling the notability criteria at WP:N or WP:MUSIC either. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell,

This has to do with a 24 block you recently issued for 3RR. While your block of User:Nsk92 was perfectly reasonable, I have had my eye on that article all day, and have begun to have some doubts about the "opponents" of the user you blocked. Nothing that would stand up in court, yet, but enough to get my puppet alarm quacking. Since I stuck my nose into the article earlier, I'm going to follow up.

So, my question is, when you suspect someone may be using a sockpuppet to edit war, is it generally best to first:

• Ask one or both suspected accounts about it by email
• Ask one or both suspected accounts about it on their talk page
• Open a thread at ANI
• Open an SSP report (with all the associated backlog)
• Block them all and let God sort them out (not currently an option for me)

Hard to balance transparency and evidence collection with AGF and politeness.

Thanks for any suggestions. --barneca (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the tag-team work of Crrockford (talk · contribs) and Skporganic (talk · contribs). Suspicious. I'm about 80% on them being socks, but I've occasionally seen an unrelated account jump in to try and bait another editor into a 3RR violation. I'd actually go right to checkuser - it should be a pretty straightforward one technically - and use the code for 3RR violation. That would be my inclination, though I'm strongly tempted to block Crrockford out of hand as a likely single-purpose sock. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the pestering newbie-type questions, but couldn't find this anywhere. Do you generally advise people when you've filed an RFCU on them? It seems the polite thing to do, but I remember with OWB it turned the Case page into a free-for-all. Looks like you're busy, so if i don't hear from you soon, I'll just notify them. --barneca (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't bother to notify the person. RFCU is not an open forum for debate; basically, the checkuser results speak for themselves, so there's no role for "defending" oneself, and it tends to turn the RFCU page into a free-for-all, as you mentioned, a la WP:SSP. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your statement of evidence on my role looks fair enough, but I'd appreciate it if you could mention that ^demon's involvement came about because I'd specifically requested an uninvolved admin to close the debate. My request and the ensuing discussion, in which you participated, is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive99#Controversial AfD closure - a heads-up. The important point, of course, is that having inavertantly raised the temperature I went out of my way to lower it for the next AfD. -- ChrisO 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can add that, as I think it's relevant. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, MastCell. You've given me a hand on issues I haven't known the best way to handle, so I figured that since I posted a request at ANI, I might ask you for your opinion on the matter as well. From my post at ANI: While looking through recent changes today I noticed that the user Service Corp had completely rewritten the article on Service Corporation International, after which the article went from detailing notable events Service Corp. international was in the news for, to reading something like a puff or promotional piece on the company. I think that a conflict of interest appears to be the case here, and I don't know how best to handle it. I reverted the major rewrite of the article, and the user then completely blanked the scandal and sources section. If you know the best way to approach this issue, I'd appreciate if you could give me any advice. Thanks! --ForbiddenWord 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing it up at the conflict-of-interest noticeboard to get some outside input. For what it's worth, criticism should generally be meticulously well-sourced, because reputations are at stake, etc. If the sourcing is ironclad, then criticism definitely belongs, but it's worth going the extra mile to make sure that reliable sources back up whatever criticism is in the article. It's most important for biographies, but also important for companies, etc. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I'll see if I can go through later and do what I can as far as sourcing goes. It's not an article that I ordinarily edit, I kinda stumbled onto it when I was watching recent changes. --ForbiddenWord 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've restored Spanish Filipino since the G6 deletion didn't make sense (we edit conflicted as you were deleting it). I'm going to ask the user who tagged the article to explain what they want moved. Thanks. --- RockMFR 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sounded to me like they wanted to move an article onto that space, but it will get sorted out. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. You prod deleted Let's Paint TV, hosted by John Kilduff. He is at the help desk asking that Let's Paint TV be restored. I found the following reference and ask that you consider restoring Let's Paint TV:

• Snow, Shauna. (August 19, 1990) Los Angeles Times Landscape Artist John Kilduff Goes to the Source. Section: CA-Calendar; Page 103.
• Frank, Peter. (October 3, 1993) Long Beach Press-Telegram "Reshaping L.A." Offers post-riot optimism; Art review. Section: Life/Style; Page J6 (writing, " In a landscape-cityscape context, no pictures prove more slyly telling than John Kilduff's comically banal rendition of unused Ralphs and Thrifty signs, sitting in a grassy lot amid scattered dumpsters, the South Bay's hills rising in the background.")
• Zonkel, Phillip. (April 20, 2001) Long Beach Press-Telegram. Not so silent auction; Long Beach Museum of Art hopes to raise money with "affordable art for all." Section: Weekend; Page W3.
• Harvey, Doug. (September 2, 2004) LA Weekly The Joy of Painting Saddam: John Kilduff and Let’s Paint TV.
• Harvey, Doug. (February 22, 2006) LA Weekly Glossolalia for Dummies. MOCA’s "Painting in Tongues"
• Crow, Kelly. (August 18, 2006) The Wall Street Journal "Art with a message: Buy this house".
• Boing Boing (October 4, 2006) Let's Paint, Exercise, and Make Blended Drinks TV!
• Vice (November 13, 2006) Let's Paint, Exercise and Dress a Chicken.
• Ferguson, Kevin. (January 16, 2007) Forest Fire Magazine John Kilduff Does Everything.
• Wolinsky, Ross. (February 26, 2007) Cracked The 7 Most Insane Moments from Cable Access TV.

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've restored the article (minus the prod tag) and listed these sources on the talk page, so that the host (or any other intersted editor) can incorporate them. MastCell ^Talk 02:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mast Cell, why do you accuse me of seeking the last word in this section, when it is you who had the last word? And when my previous comment explicitly said that I would have no further comments, thus allowing others to have the last word?Ferrylodge 16:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Because you took the opportunity at AN/I to attempt to re-open and re-argue a old, long-since-closed dispute. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD brought up the old dispute in question. And my comment which you characterize as seeking the last word did not even involve that old dispute, but rather involved a two-week-old event that KC brought up, and involved KC's current accusation that I am "congenitally dense."

Your notion of incivility (if you have one) is incorrect. And by all means feel free to take the last word here!Ferrylodge 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're done. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)