![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Just noticed your I-P ban of Historicist. This is obviously not scientific, but it seems like your admin actions in the I-P arena tend to run against editors that are seen as pro-Israel. The one action that stands out is the block of User:LuvGoldStar after the CU clerk thought it was unactionable and a CU came back negative. You know your contribution history better then myself at this point, so I ask you that check your history and see if my concerns are correct. Even if my concerns are validated, it of course does not mean that you have some anti-Israel bias; it's most probably a random coincidence. However, its very important that admins do not come across as biased, as to give contributors confidence that the system is run justly. I'm not interested in doing anything about this at this point, just bringing this issue to you informally, to hear what you think. Sincerely, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't proceed out of a desire to "balance" my administrative actions by sanctioning a roughly equal number of editors from each POV. I don't think that's a good substitute for evaluating cases individually. I don't really feel like digging through my logs, but my last few actions in this particular arena include an indefinite block of Halfacanyon ( talk · contribs), an advocate for the pro-Palestinian POV. More generally, I think that editing to advance a nationalistic agenda is deeply problematic on Wikipedia, whether that agenda is pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or pro-Ugandan.
I take your point about the need for admins to come across as unbiased. I suppose I wish that editors on these topics would feel a similar compulsion to come across as unbiased, or at least to give the impression that their participation in this project is not driven entirely by a desire to advance their agenda. MastCell Talk 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important that admins not give off a reasonable impression of bias. The key word, as always, is reasonable. To that end, the best approach is probably a willingness to submit one's decisions for outside review by the community. I think I've always been willing to do so, and I'm certainly willing in this case. If I got objective feedback that my actions were biased - for example, if they were overturned or strongly questioned by uninvolved reviewers - then I would certainly need to take that to heart. I don't recall this happening, but perhaps I'm developing Alberto Gonzalez syndrome in my old age.
In any case, I am not currently an active administrator and I don't anticipate becoming much more active in the future. I'd be happy to submit the Historicist action for review at any point and will agree in advance to the results of community review of that sanction. It would be nice to see Historicist creating more good articles along the lines of those you cite. However, his behavior in this case - edit-warring to insert material that was questionable, if not an outright BLP violation, and creating a sock immediately to continue the inappropriate behavior - is an egregious violation of our policies and predictably worsens an already toxic editing environment; it is also recidivism given previous blocks on the same topic. This is, to my mind, exactly the sort of behavior with which the most recent ArbCom case signals a loss of tolerance. I'm a bit concerned to see you minimize this behavior as "alleged" wrongdoing.
In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria, a number of editors who had contributed excellent and even featured content on I-P topics were nonetheless banned from those areas due to ongoing problems. In that context, I don't see Historicist's 3 DYK's as a major counterbalance to the unacceptably poor behavior. That said, the topic ban is indefinite in the sense of having no fixed length, not indefinite in the sense of forever, so I would be open to revisiting it myself at some point, or of course the community or ArbCom could see fit to lift it at any point. I hope that addresses some of your concerns, even if it does not allay them. MastCell Talk 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you think this article is covered in the scope of the ARBPIA topic ban? Specifically the History section? nableezy - 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
MastCell, I have to say I am a bit concerned with how Historicist is using his regained freedom to edit in the topic area. He has been going through adding negative information to BLPs sourced solely to NGO Monitor, which is in my opinion an unreliable source and without doubt being used as a primary source. See Sarah Leah Whitson and the edits to Marc Garlasco and Criticism of Human Rights Watch. If you say these edits are not a problem I will drop it, but I dont see how using a source as poor as NGO Monitor in BLPs is acceptable. nableezy - 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not entirely sure how you got involved, but TimVickers used a template threatening me with a block for re-adding a WHO tag to Chiropractic. If you look at the talk page, even Tim himself acknowledges that the sentence I re-tagged should have the opinion attributed - which, if you read the who? link, is what the tag requests. If you look at the history of the Chiropractic article, I originally added two tags - who? and citation needed. The subsequent edits only fixed the citation needed, not the who?, which is why I re-added it. If you really think I am in the wrong and TimVickers is in the right, I'm happy to discuss this further. -- Surturz ( talk) 07:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ring any bells? MastCell Talk 03:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)A one-time, single-bit error in either player's interpretation of events can lead to an unending "death spiral". In this symmetric situation, each side perceives itself as preferring to cooperate, if only the other side would. But each is forced by the strategy into repeatedly punishing an opponent who continues to attack despite being punished in every game cycle. Both sides come to think of themselves as innocent and acting in self-defense, and their opponent as either evil or too stupid to learn to cooperate.
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to
User talk:MastCell. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the
sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want.
Tim Vickers (
talk)
05:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean this? Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In light of the interesting diff's you've cited, I can only say this: [1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
As a friendly heads up, your statement in the current RFAR is nearing 700 words long. As requested by the arbitration committee on the RFAR page, statements should be kept below 500 words. Although the current length is ok for now, please don't increase the length of it. It is worth remembering that as this stage you are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. Many thanks for you time reading this.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The usual. See his last diff. Fainites barley scribs 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
and again Fainites barley scribs 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed that this article and its talk page might be unprotected and watched with great vigilance to see if the problem has gone away. The article was semiprotected by Jfdwolff ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in August, 2008 and you semiprotected the talk page at about the same time. -- TS 22:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
T-loop deletion factor - does this make any sense? It's been languishing in new page patrol, probably because no one really knows if its a hoax or more or less accurate. Nathan T 01:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you look this over? This article needs to be both conservative and absolutely accurate, since it might get high-profile if these people actually do sue. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I notice that you recently lifted User:Historicist's ban on editing Israel-Palestine articles, and allowed him to operate under 1RR restrictions. I thought you might want to be aware of this post, which seems to violate Wikipedia:NPA. (For more context: [2], [3].) CJCurrie ( talk) 04:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"
"
Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi MastCell. The incident which caused Mattisse's blocking has been discussed at length on and off Wikipedia with Mattisse. She has served the two week block. She is now back to concentrate on her productive editing. I think we can best assist her with this by not dwelling on the incident. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me directly and I will be happy to help. SilkTork * YES! 07:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that I don't find the present atmosphere very easy to deal with - I sensed that I was made out to be a bully for raising what I see as very simple and important questions. The circle of Mattisse-as-victim and anyone-concerned-about-the-situation-as-bully is one of the more unfortunate recurrent themes in the problematic interactions. Insofar as her mentorship has been criticized, it's generally been for reinforcing that dynamic.
That said, I recognize the sensitivity of the situation and will consider what the most productive way forward is. It is not my intention to cause Mattisse, or anyone, distress. At the same time, I'm not quite ready to accept the status quo, which I think is unhealthy for all concerned. I will probably follow up with a couple of general questions on your talk page. Thanks for your note. MastCell Talk 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Climate change denial and the corresponding talk page? Basically i'm asking you to look at it, because i think this has blown way out of proportion. I'm frustrated here, and rather than taking this to a board, i'd like someone with good communication skills to tell me if i need a break :) [sorry - i'm simply too tired to formulate sentences in english at this point]. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 22:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
More generally, the current atmosphere more or less precludes any positive, constructive engagement. The best thing to do is probably to step back for a day or two; do other stuff; see how things shake out; and then come back and focus on the issues you see, starting with the most important. Several editors active there are quite apt, intentionally or not, at getting under one's skin... all the more reason to let it go for a bit, refresh yourself, and come back to it in a few days. That's not to say that you're "wrong"; it's just a suggestion that I've found helpful for one's mental health and longevity as a Wikipedian.
Wikipedia is full of people with an endless capacity for argument. A rational person who approaches this project as a fun, meaningful hobby can never outlast a dedicated, tenacious single-agenda account in a test of endurance. Or even if you could, it would cost you the enjoyment of editing here, so it wouldn't be worth it. More likely, you'll get tired and frustrated, say something inapt which will live on in the page history forever... and you know the rest. If someone's spoiling for a fight, don't play along. A lot of people are here just to argue, and they'll get bored if no one argues with them.
Not sure if that's what you were looking for, but it's advice I've been given in the past and found useful (if not easy to follow). But hey, your userpage says you're an experienced COBOL programmer, so you must be good at dealing with mind-bending frustration... :P MastCell Talk 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion to head off the temptation to shoot for
The Last Word
|
---|
|
Hey, MastCell, just wanted to let you know I've quite belated responded to a comment of yours on my talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you may be the best person to decide about this, as you were handling the issue before. I'll comment on the request itself on AE. Sandstein 21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the recent post on Colloidal Silver, I received this email around the same time. I have set the record straight about not editing the article or talk page until the topic ban is lifted.
So I hope you too can AGF on this slip up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This is regarding your attempt to have two of my user pages deleted. These pages were created while I was attempting to prevent these pages from being vandalized by people determined to do any an all things to have the terms mitigate or deleted from wikipedia. As discussed here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile
I do not understand why you are concerned with my discussion with User:Mangojuice. Like User:Mangojuice wrote there's no real concensus to have my page deleted. I will gladly deal with your conern that I am not making these pages "ready for prime time", so there shouldn't be any issues with having them being restored. If you have more concerns please let me know. Tkguy ( talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Could you or one of your medical stalkers please review the recent edits of Truthstands ( talk · contribs). It's a bit too medical technical for my tired mind... Verbal chat 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the autoblocks have all cleared. Your advice was not paternalistic in the slightest; but rather, sound and honest. Apologies to the community.-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Mastcell. I find it disturbing that you have unblocked user Die4dixie given 1) and foremost the hatefulness and viciousness of the personal attack. Die4Diexie has shown regret for the attack only after it happened, and even though he struck the message shortly afterward, he offered no apology to the offended user, which clearly shows some contempt on his part. Moreover, he gave a generic apology only after being blocked. 2)There was an overwhelming support for a block on the ANI, including from 3 administrators, of whom one (Sandestein) even called for an indefinite block.
3)The block was reviewed by an uninvolved administrator who clearly expressed some concern over the pattern of incivility by this user. Thus, recommended that the block stayed so that, this user could think more clearly about why his actions were simply wrong.
I suppose Die4dixie e-mailed you and promised not to do it again (something he has already promised in the past) but given the points listed above, I find it somewhere appalling that you have lifted the block considering the nature of the offense and the voiced opinions of some members of the Wikipedia community. I only hope you won’t regret this decision and that this user immediately apologizes to Frank Pais for whishing that his mother was killed.
PS: It would also be nice if you made public the e-mail exchange so there’s at least a logical rationale for unblocking him. Regards, Likeminas ( talk) 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
← I'm not willing to release email correspondence from other editors absent their express permission. To summarize, Die4Dixie emailed me expressing contrition for his remarks. I felt, based on his representation, that he understood why his remarks were inappropriate, and that similarly inappropriate outbursts and further disruption were unlikely. Since blocks are preventative and not punitive, that judgment logically leads to a decision to unblock an editor. The block is not intended to "punish" him for what was an unarguably hateful post, but to prevent further such attacks. I think the lesson has been learned; if not, then given the history here it will be an easier call next time.
I think it would be ideal, on a human level, for Die4Dixie to apologize to Frank Pais. At the same time, if an apology is to mean anything, it needs to be spontaneous and not coerced. To be clear, I think there was universal condemnation of Die4Dixie's post, and multiple admins felt it was blockworthy (including me). Any sort of repetition would be unfortunate, because it would indicate that the benefit of the doubt was misplaced, and it will be dealt with. At the same time, the block is not intended to punish someone or coerce an apology, only to prevent further egregious attacks against other editors. I think (hope) that it has served that purpose. If it appears to have failed, then please let me know. In the meantime, I think disengagement is probably the best approach. MastCell Talk 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Amygdalin is one of your watched articles, but I saw the recent edits about positive in vitro studies added here and I remembered you dealing with the colloidal silver article regarding due weight of in vitro studies there, so here I come running to you. I was hoping you or another knowledgeable individual could see whether these are reliable and weighted correctly. The dental school bit raised a red flag, considering I don't see the relevance of dentistry to oncology. Thanks, Auntie E. 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks again for your note. I'll take the opportunity to ask you a couple of the questions I had initially posted at User Talk:Mattisse. In particular, I was interested to know how you conceive of your role as mentor, and how you might approach a hypothetical situation in which Mattisse returns to some of the behavior that has been problematic in the past (I have in mind specifically making insinuations and swipes in pursuit of old grudges). I'll emphasize that I haven't seen any such behavior from Mattisse since returning from the recent block, but I do think that it would be worth discussing how such a situation might be dealt with should it occur, and what might be done differently to achieve a better outcome. If you'd prefer not to respond, that's fine. If you'd prefer to respond off-wiki, feel free to email me; anything you say there will be kept completely confidential, though I can't promise to respond by email. Thanks again. MastCell Talk 17:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have already gently indicated that I feel your comments on Mattisse's talkpage and your questioning here are unhelpful: "I'm not sure what your purpose is, but as suggested above, it might at this moment be more helpful if you read the ArbCom case", "I think we can best assist her with this by not dwelling on the incident.", "I am uncomfortable with your own line of questioning as I feel it is inappropriate and unhelpful". My above comment on your alertness was what I said - I have previously noted your interest in Mattisse, and now I am noting that you are currently alert to her postings. I would welcome a response to my earlier question as to why you are taking an interest in Mattisse. She already has a number of people paying attention to her postings - what value do you feel you can bring over and above those already watching her? And how do you feel that your attention would be helpful to Mattisse, and/or the project as a whole? SilkTork * YES! 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I took your words at face value and raised a concern here in which I know I'm not alone. Your response is to coyly insinuate that I'm the problem because I have an unhealthy "interest" in Mattisse's edits. No, she posted to WP:AN/I, which I regularly read (against my better judgment). There, I see her continuing the same pattern of vindictive obsession with a few specific editors that has caused so much trouble in the first place. I raised my concern with one of her mentors. Which part of that chain of events is inappropriate? Do you see how your earlier promise of responsiveness to concerns sounds a bit hollow in light of your response here? MastCell Talk 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey - pause, rewind and read back. Where haven't I responded to any of your questions? And where have you responded to my request to explain your interest in Mattisse? If I haven't yet made it clear, let me make it plain now: I think your attention is not helpful. I think your attention is inappropriate. I find the tone of your questioning unpleasant. You suggest I speak to Mattisse after I have already said I would consider raising the issue with her (and then decided not to as it seemed the matter was being raised plenty enough already - a view I note was shared by Newyorkbrad - an editor whose opinion I respect). I was prepared to assist you, as it is my nature to want to help out. I have given you fairly expansive answers - which have been rather time-consuming at a period when I have limited access to Wikipedia and would rather be doing something more productive. Your digging into my motives, and saying incorrectly that I have made empty promises is rather grating in the circumstances. I have prepared for you detailed statements, yet you fail to respond to my inquiries. And let us be clear there is a difference between alerting someone to something happening, and asking for a "concrete follow up". I suspect that we are not going to agree on a number of issues, and I'm not interested in hair splitting. I don't feel my time is being productively used by answering your queries. As such I withdraw my offer of assistance to you. My best suggestion to you is to spend your time productively building the encyclopedia. There are already too many people looking at Mattisse - she really does not need anyone else to inspect her postings. However, if you want to explore further - then please ask someone else, and it would be helpful if you explained to them why you wish to get involved. SilkTork * YES! 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Read the above interaction again; I was satisfied with your response and described it as "reasonable". You responded with insinuations about my inappropriate "interest" in Mattisse. What am I supposed to conclude? Underneath your superficial placation, you think I'm the problem for bringing you a concern about your mentee - something which you had repeatedly asked people to do.
I don't understand your offense at the "concrete follow-up"; I simply meant that I was bringing you an actual situation for discussion, as opposed to a hypothetical - hence "concrete". And it was simply a "follow-up" to my earlier questions. I'm increasingly finding myself in the long line of people who consider this mentorship a major disappointment. If anything, it seems that Mattisse is modifying your behavior, rather than vice-versa. MastCell Talk 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
here. Fainites barley scribs 17:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
And its getting very out of hand! Fainites barley scribs 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I do rather resent being called "Dpeterson" and a meat puppet. At some point I would hope that "fainites" would be called upon to prove these suppositions about my identity. I am very much my own person.
I shall prepare DETAILED documentation of the litigation, so as to comply with the "living persons" standards.
Didacticderivative ( talk) 14:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
all of which are still editing ... I'm afraid to ask ... Antandrus (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Would this be a violation of the 1RR rule: [7], [8]?-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Whenever you want to focus on content and not on contributors, let me know. Waiting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, Focus on Content , you came to my talk page to discuss matters. I can make the same statement about your actions and hole digging. I am all about civility and whenever you want to start let me know. I have been asking to Focus on Content for quite sometime, your comment about digging holes supports my claim that my requests to Focus on Content are still being ignored. I have chosen to step away from this debate and focus on making contributions, I think most civil resolution would be to end the discussion.-- 0pen$0urce ( talk) 11:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
... has a reply. FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2009 flu pandemic just passed GAC. I'm looking to nominate it for FAC, but would like somebody with talent in writing medical articles to have a look first so I don't embarrass myself. Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Passing on a delightful piece of spam I got.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 03:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've been in conflict before numerous times, but I was always on the right side of policy and had serious back up like you guys so I don't know how that might effect a hypothetical run. I tend to avoid the free-for-all areas like fiction, games and sports so maybe I don't even know what a real wikiwar is like... Auntie E. 01:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the past you have expressed a very level-headed approach to this article. There has been a lenghty discussion 9argument) just in the past few days, leading to page protection. I have participated in this discussion but not much, in the past few days, so I don't know what specifically led to the protection. Unimportant. What is important in my mind is the potential for you to review the last few day's talk and identify key issues in content or content politics that you either can clarify, or where you may ask a question that might help antagonistic parties clarify the issue and move towards some way of collaborating smoothly. In any event I think your assessment at this juncture would be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
MC, would you be able to add Water flouridation to your watchlist? It seems to be an anti-science magnet. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, after not receiving a reply on the talk page for this article I undid your change. There were a number of edits involved, nearly all of them simple grammatical errors corrected (e.g. we don't say 'England refers to a country' but 'England is a country'). Feel free to undo any but can you please address them individually instead of en bloc, thanks. The Rationalist ( talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Here. This linked to an attack blog attacking the usual victims - and purported to contain a post by me!! There has been an exponential proliferation of these attack blogs recently. I can only assume there aren't many patients in the AT world. Fainites barley scribs 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
[15] You've added the diff to the old "let's ban sarcasm" discussion on Vassyana's page, suggesting it was an example not-quite-your-finest-moment. I think you may have intended to add something else. Risker ( talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Now if I was really was a Colloidal Silver Promoter I'd be rubbing my hands together over this impending train wreck. All that stuff about argyria, coma, FDA, TGA, etc is going to be shoved into a new article that no-one will read. Beautiful! DHawker ( talk) 05:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It'll never 'be over'. (The ban I mean. Its permanent.) DHawker ( talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Here Fainites barley scribs 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7641/ Yilloslime T C 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The IP is Scibaby. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mastcell, I'm planning to start a peer review of the ABC hypothesis article sometime this month/year. My current notes are here. Just wondering about your thoughts or opinions on that notion. - Roy Boy 06:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I brought this up a while ago, and finally done something about it. Notice the lack of adjectives like "great", "good", "representative", "factual" or "well-referenced". Tah-dah! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (while keeping in mind excessive cross-posting below). For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion.
The canvassing you are accusing me of is just that... a friendly notice to someone who has been involved in the article in the past, and an attempt to improve rather than to influence a discussion.
I am confounded by the fact that you cannot see the difference, and the fact that you are OBVIOUSLY personally attacking me. May I ask why? Neuromancer ( talk) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you (Mister Hospodar) conclude that everyone who disagrees with you (that is, everyone you've encountered on Wikipedia thus far) must be part of a nefarious conspiracy, and why they must be "paid" by their "bosses" to "police" these articles. Leaving aside the various behavioral policies violated by such repetitive accusations, do you think alternate explanations are possible, if not likely? For example, is it possible that people edit these articles out of a desire to create a serious, respectable reference work - one that treats discredited claims honestly as discredited claims, rather creating a false impression of ongoing scientific debate? Could these nefarious editors possibly be motivated to contribute their free time to ensure that potentially important medical information here accurately reflects the knowledge of scholars and experts in the field? MastCell Talk 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In reply to the above question, I will state that NO, there is no other possible explanation for editors who take down within 30 minutes any edits that disagree with their agenda without considering the logic or validity of these edits, many of which edits greatly improve the articles in question; whose arguments funnel always into the same tired arguments and bullying, all of which adhere to a fixed political agenda and specific types of censorship; who are on call seemingly 24 hours a day for years to revert any edit which they think is damning to their agenda; who spend countless hours creating specious, illogical arguments and trying the time-worn tactic of invalidating their "opponents" with name-calling and fringe accusations; who ridicule and demean everyone, including established scientists, who disagree with their agenda; who are clearly not clever or informed enough to be operating on their own, say, as AIDS scientists or researchers who merely want to help the world with their knowledge; and who police a number of pages all related to the concerns of pharmaceutical companies, slamming alternative therapies and spreading disinformation about diseases. If your bosses at big pharma are reading this, they should know that you're not doing a very good job of hiding any of this. Mister Hospodar ( talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't copying deleted/soon-to-be-deleted articles onto your userpage against the rules? (I'm not accusing you, btw!) Verbal chat 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A rather large new article with a non-standard name. Might be up your street. Probably needs a rename at the very least. Verbal chat 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, MastCell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. Thank you.
Sorry, MastCell, I recognise you're more patient than I and ANI might not have been your choice of how to discuss the issue. I just feel the user's motivations and tactics have been made sufficiently clear and this has gone on long enough. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
But whatever; I was kicking around whether the annoyance of dealing with this nonsense rose to the level of rolling the dice in an AN/I crapshoot. I left a few diffs there expressing my view, and I'll leave it at that for now. MastCell Talk 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Just noticed your I-P ban of Historicist. This is obviously not scientific, but it seems like your admin actions in the I-P arena tend to run against editors that are seen as pro-Israel. The one action that stands out is the block of User:LuvGoldStar after the CU clerk thought it was unactionable and a CU came back negative. You know your contribution history better then myself at this point, so I ask you that check your history and see if my concerns are correct. Even if my concerns are validated, it of course does not mean that you have some anti-Israel bias; it's most probably a random coincidence. However, its very important that admins do not come across as biased, as to give contributors confidence that the system is run justly. I'm not interested in doing anything about this at this point, just bringing this issue to you informally, to hear what you think. Sincerely, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't proceed out of a desire to "balance" my administrative actions by sanctioning a roughly equal number of editors from each POV. I don't think that's a good substitute for evaluating cases individually. I don't really feel like digging through my logs, but my last few actions in this particular arena include an indefinite block of Halfacanyon ( talk · contribs), an advocate for the pro-Palestinian POV. More generally, I think that editing to advance a nationalistic agenda is deeply problematic on Wikipedia, whether that agenda is pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or pro-Ugandan.
I take your point about the need for admins to come across as unbiased. I suppose I wish that editors on these topics would feel a similar compulsion to come across as unbiased, or at least to give the impression that their participation in this project is not driven entirely by a desire to advance their agenda. MastCell Talk 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important that admins not give off a reasonable impression of bias. The key word, as always, is reasonable. To that end, the best approach is probably a willingness to submit one's decisions for outside review by the community. I think I've always been willing to do so, and I'm certainly willing in this case. If I got objective feedback that my actions were biased - for example, if they were overturned or strongly questioned by uninvolved reviewers - then I would certainly need to take that to heart. I don't recall this happening, but perhaps I'm developing Alberto Gonzalez syndrome in my old age.
In any case, I am not currently an active administrator and I don't anticipate becoming much more active in the future. I'd be happy to submit the Historicist action for review at any point and will agree in advance to the results of community review of that sanction. It would be nice to see Historicist creating more good articles along the lines of those you cite. However, his behavior in this case - edit-warring to insert material that was questionable, if not an outright BLP violation, and creating a sock immediately to continue the inappropriate behavior - is an egregious violation of our policies and predictably worsens an already toxic editing environment; it is also recidivism given previous blocks on the same topic. This is, to my mind, exactly the sort of behavior with which the most recent ArbCom case signals a loss of tolerance. I'm a bit concerned to see you minimize this behavior as "alleged" wrongdoing.
In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria, a number of editors who had contributed excellent and even featured content on I-P topics were nonetheless banned from those areas due to ongoing problems. In that context, I don't see Historicist's 3 DYK's as a major counterbalance to the unacceptably poor behavior. That said, the topic ban is indefinite in the sense of having no fixed length, not indefinite in the sense of forever, so I would be open to revisiting it myself at some point, or of course the community or ArbCom could see fit to lift it at any point. I hope that addresses some of your concerns, even if it does not allay them. MastCell Talk 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you think this article is covered in the scope of the ARBPIA topic ban? Specifically the History section? nableezy - 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
MastCell, I have to say I am a bit concerned with how Historicist is using his regained freedom to edit in the topic area. He has been going through adding negative information to BLPs sourced solely to NGO Monitor, which is in my opinion an unreliable source and without doubt being used as a primary source. See Sarah Leah Whitson and the edits to Marc Garlasco and Criticism of Human Rights Watch. If you say these edits are not a problem I will drop it, but I dont see how using a source as poor as NGO Monitor in BLPs is acceptable. nableezy - 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not entirely sure how you got involved, but TimVickers used a template threatening me with a block for re-adding a WHO tag to Chiropractic. If you look at the talk page, even Tim himself acknowledges that the sentence I re-tagged should have the opinion attributed - which, if you read the who? link, is what the tag requests. If you look at the history of the Chiropractic article, I originally added two tags - who? and citation needed. The subsequent edits only fixed the citation needed, not the who?, which is why I re-added it. If you really think I am in the wrong and TimVickers is in the right, I'm happy to discuss this further. -- Surturz ( talk) 07:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ring any bells? MastCell Talk 03:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)A one-time, single-bit error in either player's interpretation of events can lead to an unending "death spiral". In this symmetric situation, each side perceives itself as preferring to cooperate, if only the other side would. But each is forced by the strategy into repeatedly punishing an opponent who continues to attack despite being punished in every game cycle. Both sides come to think of themselves as innocent and acting in self-defense, and their opponent as either evil or too stupid to learn to cooperate.
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to
User talk:MastCell. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the
sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want.
Tim Vickers (
talk)
05:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean this? Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In light of the interesting diff's you've cited, I can only say this: [1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
As a friendly heads up, your statement in the current RFAR is nearing 700 words long. As requested by the arbitration committee on the RFAR page, statements should be kept below 500 words. Although the current length is ok for now, please don't increase the length of it. It is worth remembering that as this stage you are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. Many thanks for you time reading this.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The usual. See his last diff. Fainites barley scribs 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
and again Fainites barley scribs 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed that this article and its talk page might be unprotected and watched with great vigilance to see if the problem has gone away. The article was semiprotected by Jfdwolff ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in August, 2008 and you semiprotected the talk page at about the same time. -- TS 22:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
T-loop deletion factor - does this make any sense? It's been languishing in new page patrol, probably because no one really knows if its a hoax or more or less accurate. Nathan T 01:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you look this over? This article needs to be both conservative and absolutely accurate, since it might get high-profile if these people actually do sue. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I notice that you recently lifted User:Historicist's ban on editing Israel-Palestine articles, and allowed him to operate under 1RR restrictions. I thought you might want to be aware of this post, which seems to violate Wikipedia:NPA. (For more context: [2], [3].) CJCurrie ( talk) 04:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"
"
Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi MastCell. The incident which caused Mattisse's blocking has been discussed at length on and off Wikipedia with Mattisse. She has served the two week block. She is now back to concentrate on her productive editing. I think we can best assist her with this by not dwelling on the incident. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me directly and I will be happy to help. SilkTork * YES! 07:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that I don't find the present atmosphere very easy to deal with - I sensed that I was made out to be a bully for raising what I see as very simple and important questions. The circle of Mattisse-as-victim and anyone-concerned-about-the-situation-as-bully is one of the more unfortunate recurrent themes in the problematic interactions. Insofar as her mentorship has been criticized, it's generally been for reinforcing that dynamic.
That said, I recognize the sensitivity of the situation and will consider what the most productive way forward is. It is not my intention to cause Mattisse, or anyone, distress. At the same time, I'm not quite ready to accept the status quo, which I think is unhealthy for all concerned. I will probably follow up with a couple of general questions on your talk page. Thanks for your note. MastCell Talk 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Climate change denial and the corresponding talk page? Basically i'm asking you to look at it, because i think this has blown way out of proportion. I'm frustrated here, and rather than taking this to a board, i'd like someone with good communication skills to tell me if i need a break :) [sorry - i'm simply too tired to formulate sentences in english at this point]. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 22:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
More generally, the current atmosphere more or less precludes any positive, constructive engagement. The best thing to do is probably to step back for a day or two; do other stuff; see how things shake out; and then come back and focus on the issues you see, starting with the most important. Several editors active there are quite apt, intentionally or not, at getting under one's skin... all the more reason to let it go for a bit, refresh yourself, and come back to it in a few days. That's not to say that you're "wrong"; it's just a suggestion that I've found helpful for one's mental health and longevity as a Wikipedian.
Wikipedia is full of people with an endless capacity for argument. A rational person who approaches this project as a fun, meaningful hobby can never outlast a dedicated, tenacious single-agenda account in a test of endurance. Or even if you could, it would cost you the enjoyment of editing here, so it wouldn't be worth it. More likely, you'll get tired and frustrated, say something inapt which will live on in the page history forever... and you know the rest. If someone's spoiling for a fight, don't play along. A lot of people are here just to argue, and they'll get bored if no one argues with them.
Not sure if that's what you were looking for, but it's advice I've been given in the past and found useful (if not easy to follow). But hey, your userpage says you're an experienced COBOL programmer, so you must be good at dealing with mind-bending frustration... :P MastCell Talk 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion to head off the temptation to shoot for
The Last Word
|
---|
|
Hey, MastCell, just wanted to let you know I've quite belated responded to a comment of yours on my talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you may be the best person to decide about this, as you were handling the issue before. I'll comment on the request itself on AE. Sandstein 21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the recent post on Colloidal Silver, I received this email around the same time. I have set the record straight about not editing the article or talk page until the topic ban is lifted.
So I hope you too can AGF on this slip up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This is regarding your attempt to have two of my user pages deleted. These pages were created while I was attempting to prevent these pages from being vandalized by people determined to do any an all things to have the terms mitigate or deleted from wikipedia. As discussed here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile
I do not understand why you are concerned with my discussion with User:Mangojuice. Like User:Mangojuice wrote there's no real concensus to have my page deleted. I will gladly deal with your conern that I am not making these pages "ready for prime time", so there shouldn't be any issues with having them being restored. If you have more concerns please let me know. Tkguy ( talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Could you or one of your medical stalkers please review the recent edits of Truthstands ( talk · contribs). It's a bit too medical technical for my tired mind... Verbal chat 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the autoblocks have all cleared. Your advice was not paternalistic in the slightest; but rather, sound and honest. Apologies to the community.-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Mastcell. I find it disturbing that you have unblocked user Die4dixie given 1) and foremost the hatefulness and viciousness of the personal attack. Die4Diexie has shown regret for the attack only after it happened, and even though he struck the message shortly afterward, he offered no apology to the offended user, which clearly shows some contempt on his part. Moreover, he gave a generic apology only after being blocked. 2)There was an overwhelming support for a block on the ANI, including from 3 administrators, of whom one (Sandestein) even called for an indefinite block.
3)The block was reviewed by an uninvolved administrator who clearly expressed some concern over the pattern of incivility by this user. Thus, recommended that the block stayed so that, this user could think more clearly about why his actions were simply wrong.
I suppose Die4dixie e-mailed you and promised not to do it again (something he has already promised in the past) but given the points listed above, I find it somewhere appalling that you have lifted the block considering the nature of the offense and the voiced opinions of some members of the Wikipedia community. I only hope you won’t regret this decision and that this user immediately apologizes to Frank Pais for whishing that his mother was killed.
PS: It would also be nice if you made public the e-mail exchange so there’s at least a logical rationale for unblocking him. Regards, Likeminas ( talk) 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
← I'm not willing to release email correspondence from other editors absent their express permission. To summarize, Die4Dixie emailed me expressing contrition for his remarks. I felt, based on his representation, that he understood why his remarks were inappropriate, and that similarly inappropriate outbursts and further disruption were unlikely. Since blocks are preventative and not punitive, that judgment logically leads to a decision to unblock an editor. The block is not intended to "punish" him for what was an unarguably hateful post, but to prevent further such attacks. I think the lesson has been learned; if not, then given the history here it will be an easier call next time.
I think it would be ideal, on a human level, for Die4Dixie to apologize to Frank Pais. At the same time, if an apology is to mean anything, it needs to be spontaneous and not coerced. To be clear, I think there was universal condemnation of Die4Dixie's post, and multiple admins felt it was blockworthy (including me). Any sort of repetition would be unfortunate, because it would indicate that the benefit of the doubt was misplaced, and it will be dealt with. At the same time, the block is not intended to punish someone or coerce an apology, only to prevent further egregious attacks against other editors. I think (hope) that it has served that purpose. If it appears to have failed, then please let me know. In the meantime, I think disengagement is probably the best approach. MastCell Talk 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Amygdalin is one of your watched articles, but I saw the recent edits about positive in vitro studies added here and I remembered you dealing with the colloidal silver article regarding due weight of in vitro studies there, so here I come running to you. I was hoping you or another knowledgeable individual could see whether these are reliable and weighted correctly. The dental school bit raised a red flag, considering I don't see the relevance of dentistry to oncology. Thanks, Auntie E. 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks again for your note. I'll take the opportunity to ask you a couple of the questions I had initially posted at User Talk:Mattisse. In particular, I was interested to know how you conceive of your role as mentor, and how you might approach a hypothetical situation in which Mattisse returns to some of the behavior that has been problematic in the past (I have in mind specifically making insinuations and swipes in pursuit of old grudges). I'll emphasize that I haven't seen any such behavior from Mattisse since returning from the recent block, but I do think that it would be worth discussing how such a situation might be dealt with should it occur, and what might be done differently to achieve a better outcome. If you'd prefer not to respond, that's fine. If you'd prefer to respond off-wiki, feel free to email me; anything you say there will be kept completely confidential, though I can't promise to respond by email. Thanks again. MastCell Talk 17:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have already gently indicated that I feel your comments on Mattisse's talkpage and your questioning here are unhelpful: "I'm not sure what your purpose is, but as suggested above, it might at this moment be more helpful if you read the ArbCom case", "I think we can best assist her with this by not dwelling on the incident.", "I am uncomfortable with your own line of questioning as I feel it is inappropriate and unhelpful". My above comment on your alertness was what I said - I have previously noted your interest in Mattisse, and now I am noting that you are currently alert to her postings. I would welcome a response to my earlier question as to why you are taking an interest in Mattisse. She already has a number of people paying attention to her postings - what value do you feel you can bring over and above those already watching her? And how do you feel that your attention would be helpful to Mattisse, and/or the project as a whole? SilkTork * YES! 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I took your words at face value and raised a concern here in which I know I'm not alone. Your response is to coyly insinuate that I'm the problem because I have an unhealthy "interest" in Mattisse's edits. No, she posted to WP:AN/I, which I regularly read (against my better judgment). There, I see her continuing the same pattern of vindictive obsession with a few specific editors that has caused so much trouble in the first place. I raised my concern with one of her mentors. Which part of that chain of events is inappropriate? Do you see how your earlier promise of responsiveness to concerns sounds a bit hollow in light of your response here? MastCell Talk 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey - pause, rewind and read back. Where haven't I responded to any of your questions? And where have you responded to my request to explain your interest in Mattisse? If I haven't yet made it clear, let me make it plain now: I think your attention is not helpful. I think your attention is inappropriate. I find the tone of your questioning unpleasant. You suggest I speak to Mattisse after I have already said I would consider raising the issue with her (and then decided not to as it seemed the matter was being raised plenty enough already - a view I note was shared by Newyorkbrad - an editor whose opinion I respect). I was prepared to assist you, as it is my nature to want to help out. I have given you fairly expansive answers - which have been rather time-consuming at a period when I have limited access to Wikipedia and would rather be doing something more productive. Your digging into my motives, and saying incorrectly that I have made empty promises is rather grating in the circumstances. I have prepared for you detailed statements, yet you fail to respond to my inquiries. And let us be clear there is a difference between alerting someone to something happening, and asking for a "concrete follow up". I suspect that we are not going to agree on a number of issues, and I'm not interested in hair splitting. I don't feel my time is being productively used by answering your queries. As such I withdraw my offer of assistance to you. My best suggestion to you is to spend your time productively building the encyclopedia. There are already too many people looking at Mattisse - she really does not need anyone else to inspect her postings. However, if you want to explore further - then please ask someone else, and it would be helpful if you explained to them why you wish to get involved. SilkTork * YES! 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Read the above interaction again; I was satisfied with your response and described it as "reasonable". You responded with insinuations about my inappropriate "interest" in Mattisse. What am I supposed to conclude? Underneath your superficial placation, you think I'm the problem for bringing you a concern about your mentee - something which you had repeatedly asked people to do.
I don't understand your offense at the "concrete follow-up"; I simply meant that I was bringing you an actual situation for discussion, as opposed to a hypothetical - hence "concrete". And it was simply a "follow-up" to my earlier questions. I'm increasingly finding myself in the long line of people who consider this mentorship a major disappointment. If anything, it seems that Mattisse is modifying your behavior, rather than vice-versa. MastCell Talk 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
here. Fainites barley scribs 17:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
And its getting very out of hand! Fainites barley scribs 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I do rather resent being called "Dpeterson" and a meat puppet. At some point I would hope that "fainites" would be called upon to prove these suppositions about my identity. I am very much my own person.
I shall prepare DETAILED documentation of the litigation, so as to comply with the "living persons" standards.
Didacticderivative ( talk) 14:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
all of which are still editing ... I'm afraid to ask ... Antandrus (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Would this be a violation of the 1RR rule: [7], [8]?-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Whenever you want to focus on content and not on contributors, let me know. Waiting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, Focus on Content , you came to my talk page to discuss matters. I can make the same statement about your actions and hole digging. I am all about civility and whenever you want to start let me know. I have been asking to Focus on Content for quite sometime, your comment about digging holes supports my claim that my requests to Focus on Content are still being ignored. I have chosen to step away from this debate and focus on making contributions, I think most civil resolution would be to end the discussion.-- 0pen$0urce ( talk) 11:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
... has a reply. FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2009 flu pandemic just passed GAC. I'm looking to nominate it for FAC, but would like somebody with talent in writing medical articles to have a look first so I don't embarrass myself. Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Passing on a delightful piece of spam I got.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 03:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've been in conflict before numerous times, but I was always on the right side of policy and had serious back up like you guys so I don't know how that might effect a hypothetical run. I tend to avoid the free-for-all areas like fiction, games and sports so maybe I don't even know what a real wikiwar is like... Auntie E. 01:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the past you have expressed a very level-headed approach to this article. There has been a lenghty discussion 9argument) just in the past few days, leading to page protection. I have participated in this discussion but not much, in the past few days, so I don't know what specifically led to the protection. Unimportant. What is important in my mind is the potential for you to review the last few day's talk and identify key issues in content or content politics that you either can clarify, or where you may ask a question that might help antagonistic parties clarify the issue and move towards some way of collaborating smoothly. In any event I think your assessment at this juncture would be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
MC, would you be able to add Water flouridation to your watchlist? It seems to be an anti-science magnet. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, after not receiving a reply on the talk page for this article I undid your change. There were a number of edits involved, nearly all of them simple grammatical errors corrected (e.g. we don't say 'England refers to a country' but 'England is a country'). Feel free to undo any but can you please address them individually instead of en bloc, thanks. The Rationalist ( talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Here. This linked to an attack blog attacking the usual victims - and purported to contain a post by me!! There has been an exponential proliferation of these attack blogs recently. I can only assume there aren't many patients in the AT world. Fainites barley scribs 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
[15] You've added the diff to the old "let's ban sarcasm" discussion on Vassyana's page, suggesting it was an example not-quite-your-finest-moment. I think you may have intended to add something else. Risker ( talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Now if I was really was a Colloidal Silver Promoter I'd be rubbing my hands together over this impending train wreck. All that stuff about argyria, coma, FDA, TGA, etc is going to be shoved into a new article that no-one will read. Beautiful! DHawker ( talk) 05:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It'll never 'be over'. (The ban I mean. Its permanent.) DHawker ( talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Here Fainites barley scribs 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7641/ Yilloslime T C 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The IP is Scibaby. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mastcell, I'm planning to start a peer review of the ABC hypothesis article sometime this month/year. My current notes are here. Just wondering about your thoughts or opinions on that notion. - Roy Boy 06:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I brought this up a while ago, and finally done something about it. Notice the lack of adjectives like "great", "good", "representative", "factual" or "well-referenced". Tah-dah! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (while keeping in mind excessive cross-posting below). For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion.
The canvassing you are accusing me of is just that... a friendly notice to someone who has been involved in the article in the past, and an attempt to improve rather than to influence a discussion.
I am confounded by the fact that you cannot see the difference, and the fact that you are OBVIOUSLY personally attacking me. May I ask why? Neuromancer ( talk) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you (Mister Hospodar) conclude that everyone who disagrees with you (that is, everyone you've encountered on Wikipedia thus far) must be part of a nefarious conspiracy, and why they must be "paid" by their "bosses" to "police" these articles. Leaving aside the various behavioral policies violated by such repetitive accusations, do you think alternate explanations are possible, if not likely? For example, is it possible that people edit these articles out of a desire to create a serious, respectable reference work - one that treats discredited claims honestly as discredited claims, rather creating a false impression of ongoing scientific debate? Could these nefarious editors possibly be motivated to contribute their free time to ensure that potentially important medical information here accurately reflects the knowledge of scholars and experts in the field? MastCell Talk 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In reply to the above question, I will state that NO, there is no other possible explanation for editors who take down within 30 minutes any edits that disagree with their agenda without considering the logic or validity of these edits, many of which edits greatly improve the articles in question; whose arguments funnel always into the same tired arguments and bullying, all of which adhere to a fixed political agenda and specific types of censorship; who are on call seemingly 24 hours a day for years to revert any edit which they think is damning to their agenda; who spend countless hours creating specious, illogical arguments and trying the time-worn tactic of invalidating their "opponents" with name-calling and fringe accusations; who ridicule and demean everyone, including established scientists, who disagree with their agenda; who are clearly not clever or informed enough to be operating on their own, say, as AIDS scientists or researchers who merely want to help the world with their knowledge; and who police a number of pages all related to the concerns of pharmaceutical companies, slamming alternative therapies and spreading disinformation about diseases. If your bosses at big pharma are reading this, they should know that you're not doing a very good job of hiding any of this. Mister Hospodar ( talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't copying deleted/soon-to-be-deleted articles onto your userpage against the rules? (I'm not accusing you, btw!) Verbal chat 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A rather large new article with a non-standard name. Might be up your street. Probably needs a rename at the very least. Verbal chat 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, MastCell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. Thank you.
Sorry, MastCell, I recognise you're more patient than I and ANI might not have been your choice of how to discuss the issue. I just feel the user's motivations and tactics have been made sufficiently clear and this has gone on long enough. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
But whatever; I was kicking around whether the annoyance of dealing with this nonsense rose to the level of rolling the dice in an AN/I crapshoot. I left a few diffs there expressing my view, and I'll leave it at that for now. MastCell Talk 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)