![]() | 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
IIRC, we briefly discussed the idea of creating a script to block controversial articles. If you're curious, here's what I've come up with. [1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I know you have more important things to do than write here, but those of us who are not in a constant state of outrage are going to sorely miss you. Take a break, a long break if need be: but please come back and visit when you can. Eubulides ( talk) 10:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
[2]. Fainites barley scribs 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
[3] Fainites barley scribs 21:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi MC, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at a sockpuppet case. The reason I'm asking you is that you took action before in a similar I/P case, LuvGoldStar, where it was clear there was disruption going on, but there was no CU evidence; see block log. That account was on the Israeli side; this time it's the other side.
It involves two accounts and an IP address: NickCT ( talk · contribs), Soledad22 ( talk · contribs), and 24.60.157.218 ( talk · contribs). All are only sporadically used and seem clearly to be alternative accounts. They were reported for sockpuppetry, and it was found they were not the same person (technically), so the case has been closed with no action. [4]
The background is that Muhammad al-Durrah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), recently given featured article status, was mentioned off-wiki, and these accounts have now turned up at destabilize it, removing material from the Israeli perspective from the lead, and reverting to back each other up. The IP address has a few dodgy comments in his contribs e.g. [5] [6] Soledad has made a few edits in the area of the British National Party and neo-fascism, and a few vaguely anti-Jewish edits, though it's not entirely clear. e.g. [7] NickCT focuses on anti-Israel and climate change edits.
I can't take action myself because I'm an editor of the al-Durrah article. Any help would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
That said, I'm afraid I don't think I can help. While I think some sort of administrative intervention would be reasonable, I'm currently withdrawing (or attempting to withdraw) from Wikipedia. Any admin action here would be controversial, and I don't think I have the time/energy to discuss/defend a controversial admin action at present. I'm sorry, it's kind of a selfish excuse for not stepping up, but I don't really have the stomach for arguing about a block in a politically charged environment at present.
As a side note, I admire your effort to take an article as controversial and laden with potential minefields as Muhammed al-Durrah to FA status. It cannot have been easy, but you did a really nice job with it. MastCell Talk 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked for sloth; you can address community concerns about your behavior here. I also considered blocking bigger sloths, but my adminly powers don't extend to Australia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The main problem is that the people who made this place fun, and its frustrations bearable, are increasingly a vanishing breed. You've probably noticed that too. I have a lot of personal and professional demands on my time, so I need to feel like I can justify whatever time I spend here, as either pure enjoyment or meaningful volunteer service. I'm not really feeling either one right now. MastCell Talk 05:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Face it, you've become the Wikipedia equivalent of a grumpy old bloke. The best cure for that is a break. come back refreshed. The place is a bit noisier than it was before 2006 but it's infinitely better organised and I get a real sense that all the policies have matured and improved. The articles are miles better, and I at least am very proud of Wikipedia's ever-solidifying reputation as a responsive and fair organisation.
There are still people who haven't learned from the early mistakes. There are still people who cannot work well with others. But the general run of Wikipedians are amazingly helpful. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What a piece of work is a man. Don't think too hard about it. Peter (
121.220.63.111 (
talk)
11:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
Hi. I am placing a request to restore the articles of the stations of the bus rapid transit network Viva. The reason I am bringing this request is because I have noticed the inconsistency within the encyclopedic information between various articles.
Some of these stations have their own articles, while others seem to have been placed in a new article, created specifically for stations labelled "non notable". There does exist a varying degree of notability by individual station, but this should not deprive this category of articles of a general format, which could be improved to establish notability for all Viva station articles. Geo android ( talk) 22:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was reviewing unblock requests when I came across your block of this user. At first glance, he appears to be a legitimate IP editor who created an account so that he could participate in Project space. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? In absence of this, I would ask you to take a second look at your block of this user. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a lot of judgment calls like that. Often I've been proven right. On some occasions I've been wrong. Most often, I don't get to know with certainty if I was right or wrong. Have you ever read the book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell? I think about it every time someone asks for a rational, logical evidentiary proof in support of a sockpuppetry block. MastCell Talk 05:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see you're feeling a bit down about the project (don't we all sometimes) so feel free to ignore this if it's the kind of thing that adds to that feeling. Otherwise, if you have a moment, could you take a look at Seat belt legislation. Same kind of weight dispute as at Passive smoking and other public health articles. Best wishes and thanks for all your help in the past. JQ ( talk) 20:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't engaged in any "edit warring" as I simply reverted your revert of my thoughtful edit which improved the article a great deal. If anything, I would say that you are edit warring since rather than fixing what you object to yourself, you have gone to both my talk page and the article's and made accusations without contributing to the conversation. You can take the sentence out if you object to it and I can have an arbitrator look at it if I decide it should be in the article, but it's fine to take it out with a note on the talk page. -- Gloriamarie ( talk) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
MC, could I get your opinion on this? I think it's very synth-y, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
For resisting the temptation on the John Yoo discussion page to argue with bitterly ideological editors, despite being "a little leery about what's going on here," thus demonstrating selfless forbearance, dignity, calm good manners, and above all the personal integrity of balanced perspective ElijahBosley ( talk) 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
Just to let you know. I refer to your talk archives for clear, concise reasoning. I often find myself thinking, "How would User:MastCell respond?" Find a new niche to fill...but please don't leave.-- Buster7 ( talk) 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Partly inspired by your comment here, I have made a stab at adapting WP:MEDRS for more general scientific topics at User:2over0/SCIRS. The page is strictly preliminary for now, but this invitation to take a look and offer suggestions, comments, and improvements is open to everyone. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor whom you blocked in November for block evasion and disruption (see [9]) has returned and is causing problems on AN/I - see [10] and scroll down to the bottom. As the previous blocking admin, you may have a view on the situation. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! If I could figure out how to drop a star on you - I would. Well done edits! Jettparmer ( talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone is proposing that the English Johanna Budwig article should be deleted. You might wish to offer your opinion. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 10:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jayhawk of Justice. Thank you for your time.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This made me smile. Better, since it inspired me to read the articles, maybe this time I will be able to keep track of which is synechdoche and which metonymy. I kept a mnemonic long enough to discourse learnedly through high school Latin, but ever since have had to use the external brain when I need either device. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
To KillerChihuahua & MastCell,
1) I'm a little concerned that the AE concerning Supreme, Verx, and myself are merging w/ the one concerning Gatoclass. I'm worried some of us might miss your Supreme or Verx might miss the fact that you are commenting about them on a different AE.
2) Following your comments, I hope it will be noted that I've already apologized for the "Zionist Lobby" comment. NickCT ( talk) 19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You've made some pretty serious accusations against me with this comment. Some of it may be due to a lack of clarification on my part (not showing clearly enough the evidence of admin power abuse), but some of it was quite troubling. I've never accused anyone of antisemitism or Holocaust denialism, and your unsubstantiated accusations that I made unsubstantiated accusations, is quite ironic when one takes perspective. I've made a specific response at the AE page and I would hope you would respond (or redact) in turn. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not opposed to some level of contentious give-and-take on controversial topics. However, I am opposed to knee-jerk, unsubstantiated accusations of bigotry (and worse) over every difference of opinion. I hope I'm not the only one who sees a distinction there. MastCell Talk 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If you were aware that most Holocaust scholars share Gatoclass' view on this subject, then it's appalling that you would pretend that this view is evidence of Holocaust denialism. On the other hand, if you were unaware of the scholarly consensus, then you're a person who's happy to call someone a Holocaust denialist without doing the most basic assumption-checking or due diligence. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that you relied uncritically on Mbz1's selection of sources, which was deeply selective and unrepresentative of actual scholarly thought. That's still not much of an excuse given the gravity of charges you're hurling around, though.
Let me know when you're done with your statistical analysis. I hope you will exercise greater diligence in its compilation than you do hurling appalling accusations at other editors. MastCell Talk 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not saying that all "scholars" agree on the issue, but even Nuremberg trial testimony alone is notable one by itself, and the article should not have been denied the way it was on DYK nomination. Although the source does not mention specifically "that the raw materials came specifically from the fat of Jews being slaughtered in Nazi extermination camps", but it does mention Auschwitz concentration camp, which, as we all know, "was designated by Heinrich Himmler, Germany's Minister of the Interior, as the locus of the "final solution of the Jewish question in Europe." ". As always please feel free to remove the message.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC) -- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I have recently referenced your attempted archival of the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Since I returned to WP, I have to say I have been very pleasantly surprised by the improvement in administrative fairness and control. However, I am sincerely confused by your choosing this diff:
to characterize as "my explanation", when it was clearly the tail end and most minor point of a lengthy argument. My initial statement is the real explanation of my edit, which is here:
I don't see how a diff could have possibly been chosen to cast my action in a more misleading light. I apologize if I am seeing this improperly, but I do respectfully ask that you clarify this.
Regards Fell Gleaming( talk) 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, you continue to make claims that are demonstrably false. You claimed that you posted to the talk page before making the edit in question ( [16]). In fact, as Hipocrite pointed out, this is a false assertion. At first I thought maybe you'd just forgotten the sequence. Then I noticed that you initially cited the actual diff for your talk page comment, only to make this alteration a few minutes later. That suggests to me that you were aware that the sequence of events did not support your claim, but that you chose to make the claim anyway.
I raise that example to illustrate a point. You seem to have a habit of making bold and aggressive assertions which, on investigation, are not supported by the factual record. It takes you a few seconds to make a claim, and it takes someone else significantly longer to investigate and refute that claim as baseless. I am happy to respond to questions about my actions - in fact, I felt I left a detailed rationale for them at the enforcement page. However, my willingness to respond to your queries should probably be viewed in the context of the amount of time you spend doing due diligence and fact-checking your own assertions before making them. MastCell Talk 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Willie_Soon#My_recent_undoing_of_FellGleaming.27s_edit - "The two quotes that FellGleaming put into the article with this edit both came from the unpublished draft paper. Neither are from the actual paper even though FellGleaming changed the reference to cite the actual Interfaces paper he obviously didn't check out the fact that those quotes had understandably been removed from the article." - Polargeo Hipocrite ( talk) 13:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Mastcell, I noticed you've been one of the admins admonishing FellGleaming for misreading sources. I wounder what you think of this edit, which was added twice by WMC, with no source whatsoever? Since FellGleaming is strongly admonished for misreading of a source, shouldn't an editor who added obviously snarky text with no source be admonished even more severely? Because certainly misreading of sources can be explained with AGF, whereas adding something like that with no source has no good faith interpretation. ATren ( talk) 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, I think the moral-equivalence game is one of the biggest problems with behavior in this topic area - that is, every time someone is caught doing something wrong, the knee-jerk defense seems to be: "But he did something just as bad two weeks ago!" I'm loathe to play into that dynamic. I will say that unsourced material is generally removed readily and correctly as unsourced; that is a straightforward editing decision. Misrepresentation of sources is more pernicious in some ways. On some level, we trust editors to honestly represent the sources they cite, to use direct quotations scrupulously, and so forth. When an editor repeatedly misrepresents sources and quotes - whether intentionally or through carelessness - then that trust is endangered. Removing an unsourced edit takes a few seconds. On the other hand, verifying an editor's work against the sources s/he cites (particularly offline sources) is a laborious process. I think you'll find that the community has typically reserved particularly harsh opprobium for editors who are caught manufacturing, misrepresenting, or otherwise abusing sources, probably because of the way such behavior undermines the basic social contract here. MastCell Talk 23:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a request to see if you will submit to formal mediation regarding your actions on [19] this issue. Thanks. Fell Gleaming( talk) 19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Your objections seem to be largely procedural with regard to the warning you were given. Obviously, I don't feel that the request was handled out of process, nor that my contributions there portrayed you in a false light. (If anything, you seem to be continuing the pattern of misrepresenting sources, which inclines me to believe I should have heeded another admin's call for a harsher sanction against you). If you're not willing to take the warning to heart, then the best advice I can give you is to appeal it as described on the probation page. In light of your apparently ongoing cavalier attitude toward the use of sources, it seems unlikely that a mediator would convince me that the warning was unfounded, so your best bet is probably to try another audience. MastCell Talk 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it needs a new semiprotection.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I don't dispute that secondary sources should be used, but can't those two blog entries be cited in addition, so that readers have an additional avenue with which to vet the material for themselves? Nightscream ( talk) 05:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
FAC was withdrawn, but headed for GA: see User talk:WhatamIdoing#Notifying you of the featured article nomination of Leukemia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Re the "personal information" template, looks like I went too far this time. I had no idea anyone would take it seriously and apologize without reservation. Especially to MastCell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
MastCell, you blocked user:$atan's$pawn a few days ago. I think he's back as user:$hady$hysterGeithner. The name alone makes me suspicious and editing one of SS's posts. Ravensfire ( talk) 02:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Fainites said he was going to contact you on this. Discussions User_talk:Fainites#12.183.100.130 and User_talk:Ronz#Spam. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there is a conversation going on here that might be of interest to you. I bring this to your attention due to your comments at the SPI case. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you had any comment to make about this discussion regarding the Hepatitis C Virus. The issue is whether an image with no reliable source and taken straight from the Internet should be used as an image of the virus. One editor argues that it should be used because we must assume good faith on the part of the editor that originally posted it; another argues apparently that if the image looks like a virus than we should accept it for that reason and no other. Another says that "beggars can't be choosers" and so should accept it for that reason.
So I was wondering if you had anything to say about the use of images of unknown origin, taken from the Internet, and used authoritatively in a Wikipedia article. BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
[24] There are two elements to that request. Could you also give an opinion on whether WMC made personal attacks on the talk page for that article? Cla68 ( talk) 04:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
← To address the substance of Cla68's posts:
Rather than turn each enforcement request into an archaeological expedition, I think it's more useful to focus on the specifics of each request. In this case, then, did William violate 1RR? My view is that he didn't, because the BLP exemption was valid, although his edit should ideally have been more selective. Did William commit a sanctionable personal attack? I don't think so, but then as I've stated above, my view is colored by my general aversion to "civility blocks", so perhaps other admins will differ. MastCell Talk 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"With Keepcalm vs. Retros1mone, the distance between their posts is taken as proof of sockpuppetry. With Keepcalm vs. M1roar, the lack of distance between posts is taken as proof of sockpuppetry."
Look, Trial by drowning has been a perfect test for witches for centuries. No witch has ever drowned, as proven by the fact that witches cannot drown, nor has any individual who floated not been determined guilty, as only witches float. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
...for your comments in response to the latest SPI. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me, dear sir, but why is it permissable to report the rumor from the New York Times but not permissable to report the rumor from the National Enquirer? Is there one rule in BLP policy for 'favorable' specualtion, and another for 'unfavorable' specualtion? If so, could you kindly point it out to me? It seems to me that reporting on the New York Times' leak of Kagan's nomination was a violation of policy. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 04:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've sent you an email that i'd request for you to take a look at please. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 14:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
CarbonLife9889 ( talk · contribs) appears to be yet another DPeterson ( talk · contribs) sockpuppet. I've reverted his edits and placed a sock tag on his talk. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Do keep me posted about the latest 3rr rules. Two reverts in 24 hours doesn't trigger 3rr according to my reading, but we all know that my reading is not relevant. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello MastCell. Just to let you know I have a feeling that User:Mikemikev sounds more and more like a probable returning sock of our good friend Jagz. Can someone look into it? (I will admit to being totally unfamiliar with launching a SPI investigation). Thanks.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 14:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
MastCell, at my talk page today, you said: "In general, I think your edits are moving the article away from the content of independent, reliable scholarly sources (all of which indicate that abortion is a very safe procedure and relatively safer than childbirth). Your edits do this by selectively presenting and wording information in a way that emphasizes risk at every turn."
FYI, I edited that article today to say that abortion is "safer than childbirth". Not just early abortion. Not just surgical abortion. Any abortion. Then you changed it to only say that early surgical abortion is safer than childbirth. I really find your criticism about this unpersuasive, and I hope you'll reconsider. I didn't remove any sources at all, and as far as I can tell it's really only one edit of mine today that you're really objecting to (which you reverted and I did not revert back). Thanks in advance for reconsidering. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Your edits earlier today are a case in point. Reliable sources repeatedly emphasize the safety of abortion (one journal article even compares it favorably to receiving a dose of penicillin, which is about 4 times riskier than having an abortion). Certainly all reliable sources agree that abortion is less risky than childbirth. Yet here are your edits. Note that our article originally said that abortion is less risky than childbirth through 21 weeks' gestation (which is a conservative but arguably honest representation of reliable sources). You changed this to emphasize a) contraindidcations (which are extremely rare at best), and b) that "nevertheless, abortion carries risks which increase later in pregnancy." What you're doing is relatively subtle, because your edit is factually correct. Of course abortion carries risks, as does crossing the street or eating a hamburger. But you're substituting your own preferred emphases (on the risks of abortion) for the emphases of reliable sources (which focus on the safety of abortion). You're also misrepresenting your editing here, which is why I'd prefer if you provide diffs in the future.
I'd like to reconsider my opinion of you, because I'm not a confrontational person and I dislike arguing with you. I don't think it brings out the best in either of us. But for me to reconsider, I'd need to see some evidence that you're willing to respect the actual content of reliable sources, rather than legalistically mining them for talking points that support your personal view of abortion. MastCell Talk 04:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that probably one of the most upsetting things in life is to be told to do something, then doing it, and then being lambasted for doing it by the exact person who told you to do it in the first place. Do you agree?
You advised me at the article talk page that elective abortion (both medical and surgical) is safer than childbirth throughout pregnancy, and you provided a source. [36] And then when I put this in the article, you reverted, and even blasted me at my talk page (and yours).
This is reminiscent of what has happened before with another editor. [37] Can you see why it would be upsetting to me? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:36, 29 May 2010 (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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
IIRC, we briefly discussed the idea of creating a script to block controversial articles. If you're curious, here's what I've come up with. [1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I know you have more important things to do than write here, but those of us who are not in a constant state of outrage are going to sorely miss you. Take a break, a long break if need be: but please come back and visit when you can. Eubulides ( talk) 10:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
[2]. Fainites barley scribs 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
[3] Fainites barley scribs 21:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi MC, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at a sockpuppet case. The reason I'm asking you is that you took action before in a similar I/P case, LuvGoldStar, where it was clear there was disruption going on, but there was no CU evidence; see block log. That account was on the Israeli side; this time it's the other side.
It involves two accounts and an IP address: NickCT ( talk · contribs), Soledad22 ( talk · contribs), and 24.60.157.218 ( talk · contribs). All are only sporadically used and seem clearly to be alternative accounts. They were reported for sockpuppetry, and it was found they were not the same person (technically), so the case has been closed with no action. [4]
The background is that Muhammad al-Durrah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), recently given featured article status, was mentioned off-wiki, and these accounts have now turned up at destabilize it, removing material from the Israeli perspective from the lead, and reverting to back each other up. The IP address has a few dodgy comments in his contribs e.g. [5] [6] Soledad has made a few edits in the area of the British National Party and neo-fascism, and a few vaguely anti-Jewish edits, though it's not entirely clear. e.g. [7] NickCT focuses on anti-Israel and climate change edits.
I can't take action myself because I'm an editor of the al-Durrah article. Any help would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
That said, I'm afraid I don't think I can help. While I think some sort of administrative intervention would be reasonable, I'm currently withdrawing (or attempting to withdraw) from Wikipedia. Any admin action here would be controversial, and I don't think I have the time/energy to discuss/defend a controversial admin action at present. I'm sorry, it's kind of a selfish excuse for not stepping up, but I don't really have the stomach for arguing about a block in a politically charged environment at present.
As a side note, I admire your effort to take an article as controversial and laden with potential minefields as Muhammed al-Durrah to FA status. It cannot have been easy, but you did a really nice job with it. MastCell Talk 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked for sloth; you can address community concerns about your behavior here. I also considered blocking bigger sloths, but my adminly powers don't extend to Australia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The main problem is that the people who made this place fun, and its frustrations bearable, are increasingly a vanishing breed. You've probably noticed that too. I have a lot of personal and professional demands on my time, so I need to feel like I can justify whatever time I spend here, as either pure enjoyment or meaningful volunteer service. I'm not really feeling either one right now. MastCell Talk 05:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Face it, you've become the Wikipedia equivalent of a grumpy old bloke. The best cure for that is a break. come back refreshed. The place is a bit noisier than it was before 2006 but it's infinitely better organised and I get a real sense that all the policies have matured and improved. The articles are miles better, and I at least am very proud of Wikipedia's ever-solidifying reputation as a responsive and fair organisation.
There are still people who haven't learned from the early mistakes. There are still people who cannot work well with others. But the general run of Wikipedians are amazingly helpful. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What a piece of work is a man. Don't think too hard about it. Peter (
121.220.63.111 (
talk)
11:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
Hi. I am placing a request to restore the articles of the stations of the bus rapid transit network Viva. The reason I am bringing this request is because I have noticed the inconsistency within the encyclopedic information between various articles.
Some of these stations have their own articles, while others seem to have been placed in a new article, created specifically for stations labelled "non notable". There does exist a varying degree of notability by individual station, but this should not deprive this category of articles of a general format, which could be improved to establish notability for all Viva station articles. Geo android ( talk) 22:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was reviewing unblock requests when I came across your block of this user. At first glance, he appears to be a legitimate IP editor who created an account so that he could participate in Project space. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? In absence of this, I would ask you to take a second look at your block of this user. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a lot of judgment calls like that. Often I've been proven right. On some occasions I've been wrong. Most often, I don't get to know with certainty if I was right or wrong. Have you ever read the book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell? I think about it every time someone asks for a rational, logical evidentiary proof in support of a sockpuppetry block. MastCell Talk 05:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see you're feeling a bit down about the project (don't we all sometimes) so feel free to ignore this if it's the kind of thing that adds to that feeling. Otherwise, if you have a moment, could you take a look at Seat belt legislation. Same kind of weight dispute as at Passive smoking and other public health articles. Best wishes and thanks for all your help in the past. JQ ( talk) 20:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't engaged in any "edit warring" as I simply reverted your revert of my thoughtful edit which improved the article a great deal. If anything, I would say that you are edit warring since rather than fixing what you object to yourself, you have gone to both my talk page and the article's and made accusations without contributing to the conversation. You can take the sentence out if you object to it and I can have an arbitrator look at it if I decide it should be in the article, but it's fine to take it out with a note on the talk page. -- Gloriamarie ( talk) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
MC, could I get your opinion on this? I think it's very synth-y, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
For resisting the temptation on the John Yoo discussion page to argue with bitterly ideological editors, despite being "a little leery about what's going on here," thus demonstrating selfless forbearance, dignity, calm good manners, and above all the personal integrity of balanced perspective ElijahBosley ( talk) 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
Just to let you know. I refer to your talk archives for clear, concise reasoning. I often find myself thinking, "How would User:MastCell respond?" Find a new niche to fill...but please don't leave.-- Buster7 ( talk) 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Partly inspired by your comment here, I have made a stab at adapting WP:MEDRS for more general scientific topics at User:2over0/SCIRS. The page is strictly preliminary for now, but this invitation to take a look and offer suggestions, comments, and improvements is open to everyone. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor whom you blocked in November for block evasion and disruption (see [9]) has returned and is causing problems on AN/I - see [10] and scroll down to the bottom. As the previous blocking admin, you may have a view on the situation. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! If I could figure out how to drop a star on you - I would. Well done edits! Jettparmer ( talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone is proposing that the English Johanna Budwig article should be deleted. You might wish to offer your opinion. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 10:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jayhawk of Justice. Thank you for your time.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This made me smile. Better, since it inspired me to read the articles, maybe this time I will be able to keep track of which is synechdoche and which metonymy. I kept a mnemonic long enough to discourse learnedly through high school Latin, but ever since have had to use the external brain when I need either device. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
To KillerChihuahua & MastCell,
1) I'm a little concerned that the AE concerning Supreme, Verx, and myself are merging w/ the one concerning Gatoclass. I'm worried some of us might miss your Supreme or Verx might miss the fact that you are commenting about them on a different AE.
2) Following your comments, I hope it will be noted that I've already apologized for the "Zionist Lobby" comment. NickCT ( talk) 19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You've made some pretty serious accusations against me with this comment. Some of it may be due to a lack of clarification on my part (not showing clearly enough the evidence of admin power abuse), but some of it was quite troubling. I've never accused anyone of antisemitism or Holocaust denialism, and your unsubstantiated accusations that I made unsubstantiated accusations, is quite ironic when one takes perspective. I've made a specific response at the AE page and I would hope you would respond (or redact) in turn. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not opposed to some level of contentious give-and-take on controversial topics. However, I am opposed to knee-jerk, unsubstantiated accusations of bigotry (and worse) over every difference of opinion. I hope I'm not the only one who sees a distinction there. MastCell Talk 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If you were aware that most Holocaust scholars share Gatoclass' view on this subject, then it's appalling that you would pretend that this view is evidence of Holocaust denialism. On the other hand, if you were unaware of the scholarly consensus, then you're a person who's happy to call someone a Holocaust denialist without doing the most basic assumption-checking or due diligence. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that you relied uncritically on Mbz1's selection of sources, which was deeply selective and unrepresentative of actual scholarly thought. That's still not much of an excuse given the gravity of charges you're hurling around, though.
Let me know when you're done with your statistical analysis. I hope you will exercise greater diligence in its compilation than you do hurling appalling accusations at other editors. MastCell Talk 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not saying that all "scholars" agree on the issue, but even Nuremberg trial testimony alone is notable one by itself, and the article should not have been denied the way it was on DYK nomination. Although the source does not mention specifically "that the raw materials came specifically from the fat of Jews being slaughtered in Nazi extermination camps", but it does mention Auschwitz concentration camp, which, as we all know, "was designated by Heinrich Himmler, Germany's Minister of the Interior, as the locus of the "final solution of the Jewish question in Europe." ". As always please feel free to remove the message.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC) -- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I have recently referenced your attempted archival of the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Since I returned to WP, I have to say I have been very pleasantly surprised by the improvement in administrative fairness and control. However, I am sincerely confused by your choosing this diff:
to characterize as "my explanation", when it was clearly the tail end and most minor point of a lengthy argument. My initial statement is the real explanation of my edit, which is here:
I don't see how a diff could have possibly been chosen to cast my action in a more misleading light. I apologize if I am seeing this improperly, but I do respectfully ask that you clarify this.
Regards Fell Gleaming( talk) 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, you continue to make claims that are demonstrably false. You claimed that you posted to the talk page before making the edit in question ( [16]). In fact, as Hipocrite pointed out, this is a false assertion. At first I thought maybe you'd just forgotten the sequence. Then I noticed that you initially cited the actual diff for your talk page comment, only to make this alteration a few minutes later. That suggests to me that you were aware that the sequence of events did not support your claim, but that you chose to make the claim anyway.
I raise that example to illustrate a point. You seem to have a habit of making bold and aggressive assertions which, on investigation, are not supported by the factual record. It takes you a few seconds to make a claim, and it takes someone else significantly longer to investigate and refute that claim as baseless. I am happy to respond to questions about my actions - in fact, I felt I left a detailed rationale for them at the enforcement page. However, my willingness to respond to your queries should probably be viewed in the context of the amount of time you spend doing due diligence and fact-checking your own assertions before making them. MastCell Talk 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Willie_Soon#My_recent_undoing_of_FellGleaming.27s_edit - "The two quotes that FellGleaming put into the article with this edit both came from the unpublished draft paper. Neither are from the actual paper even though FellGleaming changed the reference to cite the actual Interfaces paper he obviously didn't check out the fact that those quotes had understandably been removed from the article." - Polargeo Hipocrite ( talk) 13:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Mastcell, I noticed you've been one of the admins admonishing FellGleaming for misreading sources. I wounder what you think of this edit, which was added twice by WMC, with no source whatsoever? Since FellGleaming is strongly admonished for misreading of a source, shouldn't an editor who added obviously snarky text with no source be admonished even more severely? Because certainly misreading of sources can be explained with AGF, whereas adding something like that with no source has no good faith interpretation. ATren ( talk) 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, I think the moral-equivalence game is one of the biggest problems with behavior in this topic area - that is, every time someone is caught doing something wrong, the knee-jerk defense seems to be: "But he did something just as bad two weeks ago!" I'm loathe to play into that dynamic. I will say that unsourced material is generally removed readily and correctly as unsourced; that is a straightforward editing decision. Misrepresentation of sources is more pernicious in some ways. On some level, we trust editors to honestly represent the sources they cite, to use direct quotations scrupulously, and so forth. When an editor repeatedly misrepresents sources and quotes - whether intentionally or through carelessness - then that trust is endangered. Removing an unsourced edit takes a few seconds. On the other hand, verifying an editor's work against the sources s/he cites (particularly offline sources) is a laborious process. I think you'll find that the community has typically reserved particularly harsh opprobium for editors who are caught manufacturing, misrepresenting, or otherwise abusing sources, probably because of the way such behavior undermines the basic social contract here. MastCell Talk 23:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a request to see if you will submit to formal mediation regarding your actions on [19] this issue. Thanks. Fell Gleaming( talk) 19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Your objections seem to be largely procedural with regard to the warning you were given. Obviously, I don't feel that the request was handled out of process, nor that my contributions there portrayed you in a false light. (If anything, you seem to be continuing the pattern of misrepresenting sources, which inclines me to believe I should have heeded another admin's call for a harsher sanction against you). If you're not willing to take the warning to heart, then the best advice I can give you is to appeal it as described on the probation page. In light of your apparently ongoing cavalier attitude toward the use of sources, it seems unlikely that a mediator would convince me that the warning was unfounded, so your best bet is probably to try another audience. MastCell Talk 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it needs a new semiprotection.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I don't dispute that secondary sources should be used, but can't those two blog entries be cited in addition, so that readers have an additional avenue with which to vet the material for themselves? Nightscream ( talk) 05:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
FAC was withdrawn, but headed for GA: see User talk:WhatamIdoing#Notifying you of the featured article nomination of Leukemia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Re the "personal information" template, looks like I went too far this time. I had no idea anyone would take it seriously and apologize without reservation. Especially to MastCell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
MastCell, you blocked user:$atan's$pawn a few days ago. I think he's back as user:$hady$hysterGeithner. The name alone makes me suspicious and editing one of SS's posts. Ravensfire ( talk) 02:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Fainites said he was going to contact you on this. Discussions User_talk:Fainites#12.183.100.130 and User_talk:Ronz#Spam. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there is a conversation going on here that might be of interest to you. I bring this to your attention due to your comments at the SPI case. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you had any comment to make about this discussion regarding the Hepatitis C Virus. The issue is whether an image with no reliable source and taken straight from the Internet should be used as an image of the virus. One editor argues that it should be used because we must assume good faith on the part of the editor that originally posted it; another argues apparently that if the image looks like a virus than we should accept it for that reason and no other. Another says that "beggars can't be choosers" and so should accept it for that reason.
So I was wondering if you had anything to say about the use of images of unknown origin, taken from the Internet, and used authoritatively in a Wikipedia article. BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
[24] There are two elements to that request. Could you also give an opinion on whether WMC made personal attacks on the talk page for that article? Cla68 ( talk) 04:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
← To address the substance of Cla68's posts:
Rather than turn each enforcement request into an archaeological expedition, I think it's more useful to focus on the specifics of each request. In this case, then, did William violate 1RR? My view is that he didn't, because the BLP exemption was valid, although his edit should ideally have been more selective. Did William commit a sanctionable personal attack? I don't think so, but then as I've stated above, my view is colored by my general aversion to "civility blocks", so perhaps other admins will differ. MastCell Talk 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"With Keepcalm vs. Retros1mone, the distance between their posts is taken as proof of sockpuppetry. With Keepcalm vs. M1roar, the lack of distance between posts is taken as proof of sockpuppetry."
Look, Trial by drowning has been a perfect test for witches for centuries. No witch has ever drowned, as proven by the fact that witches cannot drown, nor has any individual who floated not been determined guilty, as only witches float. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
...for your comments in response to the latest SPI. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me, dear sir, but why is it permissable to report the rumor from the New York Times but not permissable to report the rumor from the National Enquirer? Is there one rule in BLP policy for 'favorable' specualtion, and another for 'unfavorable' specualtion? If so, could you kindly point it out to me? It seems to me that reporting on the New York Times' leak of Kagan's nomination was a violation of policy. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 04:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've sent you an email that i'd request for you to take a look at please. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 14:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
CarbonLife9889 ( talk · contribs) appears to be yet another DPeterson ( talk · contribs) sockpuppet. I've reverted his edits and placed a sock tag on his talk. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Do keep me posted about the latest 3rr rules. Two reverts in 24 hours doesn't trigger 3rr according to my reading, but we all know that my reading is not relevant. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello MastCell. Just to let you know I have a feeling that User:Mikemikev sounds more and more like a probable returning sock of our good friend Jagz. Can someone look into it? (I will admit to being totally unfamiliar with launching a SPI investigation). Thanks.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 14:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
MastCell, at my talk page today, you said: "In general, I think your edits are moving the article away from the content of independent, reliable scholarly sources (all of which indicate that abortion is a very safe procedure and relatively safer than childbirth). Your edits do this by selectively presenting and wording information in a way that emphasizes risk at every turn."
FYI, I edited that article today to say that abortion is "safer than childbirth". Not just early abortion. Not just surgical abortion. Any abortion. Then you changed it to only say that early surgical abortion is safer than childbirth. I really find your criticism about this unpersuasive, and I hope you'll reconsider. I didn't remove any sources at all, and as far as I can tell it's really only one edit of mine today that you're really objecting to (which you reverted and I did not revert back). Thanks in advance for reconsidering. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Your edits earlier today are a case in point. Reliable sources repeatedly emphasize the safety of abortion (one journal article even compares it favorably to receiving a dose of penicillin, which is about 4 times riskier than having an abortion). Certainly all reliable sources agree that abortion is less risky than childbirth. Yet here are your edits. Note that our article originally said that abortion is less risky than childbirth through 21 weeks' gestation (which is a conservative but arguably honest representation of reliable sources). You changed this to emphasize a) contraindidcations (which are extremely rare at best), and b) that "nevertheless, abortion carries risks which increase later in pregnancy." What you're doing is relatively subtle, because your edit is factually correct. Of course abortion carries risks, as does crossing the street or eating a hamburger. But you're substituting your own preferred emphases (on the risks of abortion) for the emphases of reliable sources (which focus on the safety of abortion). You're also misrepresenting your editing here, which is why I'd prefer if you provide diffs in the future.
I'd like to reconsider my opinion of you, because I'm not a confrontational person and I dislike arguing with you. I don't think it brings out the best in either of us. But for me to reconsider, I'd need to see some evidence that you're willing to respect the actual content of reliable sources, rather than legalistically mining them for talking points that support your personal view of abortion. MastCell Talk 04:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that probably one of the most upsetting things in life is to be told to do something, then doing it, and then being lambasted for doing it by the exact person who told you to do it in the first place. Do you agree?
You advised me at the article talk page that elective abortion (both medical and surgical) is safer than childbirth throughout pregnancy, and you provided a source. [36] And then when I put this in the article, you reverted, and even blasted me at my talk page (and yours).
This is reminiscent of what has happened before with another editor. [37] Can you see why it would be upsetting to me? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)