User talk:MastCell/Archive 24

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 20

←

Archive 22

→

a paragon of patience

How did you resist commenting on the use of it's/its by a National Academy of Scholars proponent? Had I only half of your self-control.... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a pet peeve of mine (see the userbox on my userpage), but I've pretty much given up on its/it's in the Internet age (who/whom has been a lost cause for years). Nowadays, if people can correctly utilize they're/their/there, I assume they were Phi Beta Kappa. As to patience, I suppose I was just inspired by your username... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm an academic, and I still (sometimes) screw up the it's/its and they're/their/there myself. please allow me to beg for mercy in advance.

--Ludwigs2 04:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The interesting thing about NAS and their ilk is that the evidence indicates that they're superfluous. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

When I saw that comment, my guess was that you were talking about the National Academy of Sciences. Since every self-respecting quackbuster knows that the Institute of Medicine is a full of quackery. Since the Cochrane systematic reviews on Alt and Comp Med find a comparable number of effective treatments, and much less harmful treatments, obviously they're just in the pocket of "big herbal". ;) II | (t - c) 19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is curious that the National Academy of Sciences happens to share an acronym with this conservative pressure group. Henry Bauer, an AIDS denialist, was described as a "member of the NAS", which I naively took to mean that he had achieved the signal honor of being elected to the Academy. Interestingly, this is not the first case of "acronym overlap syndrome" to affect the AIDS-denialist webosphere - see here for (innocent, I'm sure) confusion between the mainstream American Academy of Emergency Medicine and the utterly fringey American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Lesson: throwaway acronyms like "Fellow, AAEM" or "Member, NAS" need to be carefully parsed when they are attached to fantastical claims.

But I get it: you were poking fun at Quackwatch. I think you're rather glibly misusing the Cochrane dataset to argue equivalency, and I'm sure you understand why, so I won't belabor it.

I don't see how herbal medicines can claim to even want scientific credibility when they fight tooth and nail against any sort of regulation or safety/purity/efficacy testing. DSHEA was the best thing to happen to the herbal manufacturers who spent millions lobbying for it, and the worst thing to happen to anyone who's curious about the actual medical properties of herbal susbstances. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those similar acronyms are suspicious. Maybe it should be illegal? I actually don't understand why I'm misusing the Cochrane dataset, especially since the IOM book originally noted that they are comparable. I'll certainly allow that the IOM book actually compares the 2004 CAM Cochrane library with the 1998 conventional Cochrane library, and that comparing it from this high of a level can be misleading. It is akin to a rough epidemiological study, and it would be interesting to see it broken down into categories, or to get some idea of the magnitudes involved. A list of what the studies were on is here; most were on dietary supplements and herbal remedies. A table of the Cochrane studies is here. Just it is a rough look at the statistics doesn't mean that it doesn't say something significant. I wasn't arguing equivalency. But the difference between conventional wisdom ("alt med is quackery") and reality is stark. And I'm just as disappointed with the unscientific way that the mainstream has treated these alternative techniques for the past fifty years than with the way that they are promoted without scientific basis. The mainstream is made up of scientists who should know better. The latter are usually either crooks or poorly-educated.

I can't imagine what herbal medicines might want, but I'm sure many manufacturers don't want to be regulated. I'm sure that many consumers, such as myself, want them to be at least regulated for purity of ingredients, perhaps safety, although herbal medicines undeniably pose far less health risks on average than prescription medicines. I can't blame consumers for worrying about FDA regulation for efficacy, when the big pharmaceutical companies impose so much influence on the FDA (see, for example, the preemption controversy).

I've noticed stark results from two remedies, kava and xylitol, and I can safely say they have changed my life for the better (xylitol nasal wash cured my chronic sinusitis[1], and kava helped me conquer social anxiety disorder). Unfortunately I can't find reliable potent kava in the pill form anymore. I have to buy it in a paste. II | (t - c) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, kava's a bit risky, especially since it's hard to know how potent a given brand is, but you can't argue with success, I suppose. I don't hold the view that "alt med is quackery". Reality is much more nuanced; some alt-med is undeniable quackery, while other aspects have a reasonable if not particularly mature evidence base. Most are somewhere in between. I refer people to chiropractors from time to time; I've also witnessed cases where people suffered serious or irreversible damage as a result of alt-med practitioners operating outside their scope or skills.

But even if thought it was all quackery, I'm a pragmatist. People use the stuff. I think it's much more interesting to view alternative medicine as an indicator of the areas where "conventional" medicine has failed to meet people's needs or expectations. Medicine does a pretty good job with serious illness - if you have AIDS, or septicemia, or testicular cancer, then "conventional" medicine can save your life, and alternative medicine can't. On the other hand, many chronic, non-lethal conditions are often poorly addressed by mainstream medicine. You hit upon two: social anxiety disorder and chronic sinusitis, to which I'd add back pain (really, any chronic musculoskeletal pain), allergies, and a host of others. I'd also throw "health promotion" (rather than treatment of disease) under that umbrella - mainstream medicine has moved forward here, but historically it's been a neglected area.

You mentioned pre-emption, which is a concerning area. Certainly the regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is suboptimal, from any perspective, but there's no comparison to the herbal/supplement industry, which is based solely on the principle of caveat emptor. I have very little patience for the supplement industry and their flacks when they criticize the drug industry - because these guys would go to any length and spend their last lobbying dollar to avoid being subject to even 1/1000th of the regulation that drug companies operate under. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jagz sockpuppets

His recent attempts of abusing sockpuppets with Deadasamackerel and Hit the fan should end all thought of ever removing his permanent community ban. And those who provided Jagz good faith should be trouted with a ripe one. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're preaching to the Pope on that one. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Trout my gluteus maximus. Vigorous whacking with a blue whale wouldn't be enough to drive clue into some of these individuals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I'm warning you that tonight is bonfire night. Happy November the Fifth (is it a celebration that he was stopped in time, or that he nearly got away with it? I'm never sure) Verbal chat 20:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To Boris. I don't know what they taught you at the collective educational facility, but a trout is a fish, and a whale is not. I think you flunked Metaphor 101. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I always do my best to derail a mixed metaphor before it takes flight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a thought we can all get behind. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say, it's not your ass in the noose. Verbal chat 20:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, anybody ever noticed that Jagz' three known sockpuppet names, strung together, form a sentence? Fat Cigar Hit the Fan, Dead As a Mackerel. Could there be a subliminal message in there?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jagz' Fat Cigar Hit the Fan, Dead As a Mackerel. I think you'll find (or is it Jagz's?) Verbal chat 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Thanks for closing the discussion. I was wondering if I should move it to his talk page or something, but I thought I should outline the problem first. Cheers, Verbal chat 20:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, is it considered appropriate to delete posts from Talk Pages if someone considers their content to be "libelous"? If the very fact that it is contentious is why the original poster posted it, shouldn't it be discussed instead, with an opportunity given to the original poster to establish that it is reliably sourced, and for dissenters to refute it by presenting counterarguments? Nightscream (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, WP:BLP applies to talk pages (actually, all namespaces), so unsourced and defamatory speculation has no place anywhere. On the other hand, talk pages have to serve as a place where ideas for article improvement can be openly discussed. The line is usually pretty clear: if a post contains negative information about a person, but that information is well-sourced and encyclopedic enough that one could potentially see it making its way into article space, then it should remain. However, if the negative material is unsourced or poorly sourced (as defined in WP:BLP), and there is no reasonable expectation that it can be rendered encyclopedic, then it really has no place on the talk page.

In the case in question, the claims are sourced (vaguely) to an AIDS-denialist tract which appears to be published by an obscure publisher - possibly self-published, though I haven't looked into this. There's no way that this is an acceptable source for serious accusations about a living person. Pending a better source, I don't have a problem with removing this material per WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Always generous, MastCell: the "obscure publisher" has published a grand total of one book and is owned by the author. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You publish books now, or is this a new movie? "MastCell: The Obscure Publisher" - is it like the punisher? (sorry) Verbal chat 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am becoming a bit of an expert on vanity presses thanks to Wikipedia. I am also considering submitting my work to Medical Hypotheses for publication. My current dream project is to compile a Wikipedia-specific impact factor: basically, to survey Wikipedia's scientific and medical articles and rank journals by how heavily they are cited. I believe the results will be utterly horrifying; for example, it would not surprise me at all if Medical Hypotheses or the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons outranked the New England Journal or Cell in terms of Wikipedia citations. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I computed statistics for that a couple of a months ago, just for Featured Articles in health and medicine and just counting {{Cite journal}}. The final score was N Engl J Med 50, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 48, Lancet 42, Neurology 39, ..., Med Hypotheses 4,... and Cell zero. See User:Eubulides/Sandbox. That zero for Cell was pretty embarrassing! but I know the Cell count is at least 3 now since I've added that many cites to Cell since then. Eubulides (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not too bad; I can see at least one justifiable citation to Medical Hypotheses, in that the original paper claiming a link between thimerosal and autism appeared there, so for historical purposes... but I suspect the situation is far worse if we look beyond the featured articles. MastCell ^Talk 06:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to self, cite Cell in the future wherever possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Jimbo Wales said a note should be placed in the archived discussion explaining what happened, would you mind if I did this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. I'd prefer something short and neutral, like "Comment removed per talk page guidelines", with a diff if necessary. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

I would like a clarification of my topic ban from Barack Obama articles, since you appear to be the self-appointed jailer/gatekeeper/interpreter. My question is about Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Obama has nothing to do with that organization. Efforts to link him to that organization have been met with edit warring from the cabal of editors who have appointed themselves as Obama's protectors at Wikipedia, so I will accept their judgment on the matter. ACORN endorsed Obama for president, but that doesn't make it an Obama article; and now that the election is over, it's more irrelevant. I will steer clear of any mention of Obama in that article. But I would like to participate in editing the article.

Also, you said on my User Talk page at the time you blocked me on October 12, "If I'm wrong about your motivation for editing the article, I look forward to your improvements to our ACORN article when your block expires after the Presidential election."[2] Implicit in that statement was a promise to allow me to edit that article after the block expired. The block has expired. I demand that you keep your promise. Kossack4Truth (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I like your easygoing, non-confrontational style. That's just the sort of approach we need on these controversial articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In real life, you'd be amazed at my easy-going and non-confrontational nature. But if you'd take a look at this editor -- years of work on a multitude of topics, and his illustrious history here [3] -- you'd realize that I'm not alone in recognizing a serious problem, and attempting to resolve it. He was a very good editor, with a real wealth of easy-going, non-confrontational charm, and he has been driven off. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to see Noroton go; I had a very positive impression of him, and I had brief contact with Jayvdb (talk · contribs) who was looking into the circumstances surrounding Noroton's block. My hope was that things would be sorted out and he'd return to editing, because I think he was a good editor.

I'm not encouraged by your continued insistence on viewing Wikipedia as a battlefield. That said, I am OK with you returning to edit the article at this point, per the line of reasoning you quoted above. I doubt you're going to be cut an extensive amount of slack, given past history, so please make an effort to keep things under control. That said, yes, as far as I'm concerned it's OK for you to once again edit the ACORN article. MastCell ^Talk 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey MastCell, I'd like some clarification as well. A topic ban means he can't even comment on the topic, whether in article space, talk space, or user talk, right? So is this edit, in an Obama section, out of line? Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw your response below, no need to reply twice. Thanks, Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing

Hi MastCell,

If you're still watching colon cleansing, could you have a look at the talk page and the most recent changes? I wouldn't mind endorsement of my analysis of the Medical Hypotheses article here. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

Did you reply? I checked my queue but didn't see anything. Or you can contact me via IMs. --El on ka 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping? --El on ka 06:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I had not emailed you back because, as I said, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you'd like that in an email, I'll send it, but I don't know what else to say at present without more context or detail. MastCell ^Talk 06:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN disruption

The article on ACORN is currently under full protection because of disruption by User:WorkerBee74 and the possible sock account User:Marx0728. It's hard to keep up with what is a block, a ban, etc., but I think the WB74 account is now blocked for a while. In the meanwhile, the account User:Kossack4Truth, that you blocked for a month a month ago, has shown up to continue all the arguments and tone previously carried out by the account WB74. Also at the same moment, the SPA User:Curious bystander also showed up. Since you were previously involved in the applying the K4T block, and had followed these accounts, I thought you might want to keep half-an-eye on the article and the accounts.

I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what the sensible way to deal with all of this is. I'm not quite sure how many editors are behind these disruptive accounts, but I'm pretty darn certain that accounts > editors, even if editors > 1. Any thoughts? LotLE×talk 18:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody asked my opinion, but since ACORN is still full-protected until 15 November, I don't see any urgency. Though Kossack4Truth has shown up on the article's talk page, due to the protection he can't do anything to the article. My personal opinion is that further misbehavior by K4T should lead to an indef. Since returning from his block all he has done is express his curiously emphatic views at the ACORN talk page, and make a few innocuous edits here and there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LotLE is continuing to post these provocations, here and at the article Talk page, despite multiple warnings. This is a violation of WP:TALK and WP:CIV. Did I mention the fact that multiple warnings have been issued? Please do something to make these provocations stop, MastCell. I've had enough. I'm trying to remain civil in the face of this but I find it difficult, and I notice that the same tactics were successfully used against WorkerBee74. He was provoked into making one edit that got him blocked. Since LotLE sees that such tactics are successful, he is repeating them. It destroys any chance of a constructive and cooperative editing environment. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a violation of WP:TALK or WP:CIV, though if you want to provide diffs I will look at them. I'm not standing in the way of you editing at this point, but playing for sympathy is really overdoing it. I agree with EdJohnston's comment. MastCell ^Talk 05:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the K4T ANI details and whatnot, it looks to me like s/he is still currently under a 6 month topic ban: User talk:Kossack4Truth#I don't know how to make this clearer. To my thinking (as other editors have commented on the ACORN talk page, the ACORN edits violate this ban since K4T's edits there have always and solely concerned trying to create an association between ACORN and Obama. LotLE×talk 08:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain, with specific diffs, how I have tried in the past 24 hours "to create an association between ACORN and Obama." Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This comment appears to be a violation of the topic ban as well, and this one is advocating a bit of behind-the-scenes coordination (and insinuating same from others). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm really tired of the constant game-playing and battlefield approach of K4T. I am well past the point where I think anything of value to the encyclopedia will be lost if he's indefinitely blocked. However, I'm also tired of refereeing. Let me think about it; if there are other admins paying closer attention to these articles, you may want to solicit their opinions. I'll be happy to voice mine as well. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Arbcom

I chuckle a bit at your stubborn refusal to be drafted. Just be careful who you vote for, you never know how many people will just blindly follow your example.--Tznkai (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

MastCell has my vote if any seats open up unexpectedly after this election (which they surely will, can they still be unexpected?). If Jimmy is smart he won't pick down the list when MC here has nothing to do with his time...Avruch ^T 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The check's in the mail. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might considering running for a higher office in 2016? You appear to have already developed a base of support here ;) -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just imagine the BLP issues that would cause though.--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Full protection until January 20th, 2017 then. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the only political position I'm remotely qualified for, apparently, would be Republican Vice Presidential nominee. I've run up a huge deficit and then relied on a government bailout, which casts doubt on my fiscal responsibility. Finally, if the right wing went nuts because Obama once sat at the same table as William Ayers, I'd hate to see what they make of the people I hang around with... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that Ambassador to Fiji would be a fun position. Just that damn Senate review thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why God made recess appointments. Why should the Senate be able to stand in the way of qualified people like yourself or John Bolton? Who put them in charge, anyway? MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another "test case"?

Uncomfortably familiar goings-on here on the part of someone we recall bringing a previous ill-advised "test case" against an admin. I'm almost tempted to break my don't-get-involved-in-Wikipolitics rule. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. To be honest, once I got past my gut reaction (which was similar to yours), I do think it was an ill-advised unblock on Slrubinstein's part. Not that the unblock itself was the wrong decision, but that undoing another admin's block without discussion was an error of judgement.

I can't keep up with what WP:WHEEL says, but if I were in Charles Matthews' position, I'd be peeved as well if someone undid a "harassment" block of mine without making an effort to contact me first. Slrubinstein is a good admin; I don't think he should be desysopped or anything, but I do think that he ought to acknowledge the concern and make an effort to proactively contact the blocking admin before unblocking someone in the future.

Just my 2 cents, but then, like you, I'm trying to withdraw from wikipolitics as much as possible, so I doubt I'll comment on the RfC. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar feelings as well (I've watchlisted your talkpage by the way, since there seems so much more going on here than on mine) that RfC is a typhoon in a teacup that could have been avoided by better communication on both sides. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "typhoon in a teacup" summarizes it pretty well. I can see the point about the unblock but the response seems disproportionate -- back in my admin days I'd have just put a "that was uncool" message on the other guy's talk page. I have to wonder whether the RfC isn't laying the groundwork for something bigger, or maybe I'm just overly cynical from being around this place too long. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm holding my breath that you three will actually ignore the RfC, especially if it goes bad for Slr. I'm just saying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've commented already, so don't take that attitude, my lad. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we all scratch it up to emotions running high. Hey, yes SLR probably made a mistake, but he apologized for acting rashly already, so this RfC smacks to me like someone wants to publicly humiliate him. That's a much bigger no-no in my book than acting too quickly and then apologizing for it. And dredging up one- and two-year old events is just uncouth.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To TimVickers...you called me a lad????? I'm probably old enough to be your father. Show respect there LAD!!!! Gambling is illegal at Bushwood sir, and I never slice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, we believed you when you said you were old. No need to prove it by quoting Caddyshack. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And so what do we do with the bunch of you who quote Monty Python on a regular basis? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Monty Python is enduringly popular. People much younger than I quote them regularly. On the other hand, Caddyshack fanhood seems restricted to men d'une certaine age, as the French say. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought quoting Caddyshack restricted me to a certain IQ range, north of Republicans and south of Charlie Manuel. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I fell off the wagon. Just this once. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone fell of the wagon. All of you need rehab. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that RfC has turned into a shining example of the ~~bitch-slapping~~ dispute resolution process. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself: I'm still on the wagon and have not commented. To be honest, if I were to do so, I'd probably sign on to Jehochman's view. Ray is right that the RfC has devolved substantially into a flame war, and I don't think adding my personal opinions to it will be productive. But for private consumption, here they are:

I'm not necessarily favorably disposed toward Charles Matthews. My first exposure was when he stopped by my talk page to question my competence based on one of my speedy deletions; I later found he'd also complained about me on the mailing list. Subsequently, there was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, where I was quite (vocally) dissatisfied with the proceedings. But gut instincts aside, I'm forced to conclude that objectively Charles is basically right on the central issue in this case. Slrubinstein shouldn't have undone the block without contacting him or going to AN/I. That seems unarguable, to me. If I were in Charles' shoes, I'd also find that unacceptable. The subsequent handling of the dispute was suboptimal all aroundd, but an RfC is the official "next step" if one-on-one dispute resolution fails, so I can't really fault Charles for filing one. Unfortunately the RfC has degenerated completely, and I doubt any good will come of it - just hurt feelings.

Here's what I'd like to see: Slrubinstein says, "You're right, I'm sorry, I erred by unblocking someone without first attempting to contact the blocking admin or seeking noticeboard review, and I've learned from the incident." Charles then says, "OK, that's what I wanted to hear." Maybe Slrubinstein has said as much previously; if so, there's no harm in repeating it now. That's not meant to humiliate Slrubinstein, whom I consider an excellent and productive editor and admin; it's just meant to resolve a dispute and get everyone back to doing something more productive. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My contention is that, although RfC is the next step in DR, there is no ongoing dispute, or at least none that is relevant to Wikipedia. The only action being requested is that Slrubenstein say he's very sorry. I don't consider forced apologies a valid outcome of the dispute resolution process.

If every time two admins hated each other it went to RfC, we'd have a lot more RfCs. I feel like Charles Matthews should just be like, "I hate Slrubenstein" and move on with his life. And since Charles Matthews failed to do that and went ahead with this RfC anyway, I don't think anyone should have certified the dispute -- because "I hate that guy" is not a Wikipedia-relevant dispute. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said, MastCell. If Slrubenstein would be reasonable, all the heat would turn towards other parties, I suspect. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jaysweet: Let's suppose you're correct and that Charles is motivated by dislike of Slrubinstein. Even so, all Slrubinstein has to say is: "You're right, I should have discussed the matter before unblocking, and I'll do so going forward." Even if it's just a matter of Charles hating on Slrubinstein, even if he gave the same apology a month ago, it costs nothing, it's not particularly humiliating, and it ends the discussion. If the basis of the RfC really is personal dislike, then the best way of exposing that is by explicitly admitting one's mistakes on a policy level - because that would leave only personal dislike as a motive for continuing the RfC, at which point I think it would rapidly fizzle out. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The odd thing is that I can see Charles' point on the basic facts of the case. Unfortunately the whole RfC is coming to look like his goal is not simply to get the policy point across but to make Slr eat crow of Charles' specified variety and degree of doneness. Too much ego and pride all around. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pride-and-ego down? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah - the funny thing is that said page is "in need of attention from an expert" (in humiliating interrogation techniques, apparently). Any nominations? :) Actually, I have some experience with this technique - it's a widely employed "teaching tool" in surgical training. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Re: the "fizzle out" comment from Mastcell... I agree factually with everything you just said, and if I were in Slrubenstein's position it's more or less exactly what I would do. The fact that Slrubenstein could make the RfC go away with a simple mea culpa does not make the RfC valid, however.

On a somewhat related note, even though I agree Slrubenstein probably should not have unblocked and it would be best if he were to unequivocally apologize, I have a really hard time making sense of the initial block. Even if there is "sensitive" information we don't know, a 1-week block for WP:OUTING makes no sense to me at all. How is 1-week for OUTING preventative?? If MathSci was a short-term outing threat, then 24 hours should have been more than enough to get the message across. If MathSci was dedicated to the OUTING campaign, then the only way to prevent it would be an indef block. Right? Is there something I am missing?

Anyway, that's not really the point, as it's all in the past and I don't think it's worth arguing over it any more since the "dispute" as I defined above is over and done with. But, I can see how it could make an apology a bitter pill to swallow for Slrubenstein, if he still believes Charles Matthews acted inappropriately. So I can understand that...

I suppose the "sensitive information" we don't know could be that Mervyn's home address almost got disclosed, but he was moving in six days anyway... ;D That way, a 1-week block to prevent OUTING does make some sense... Right? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess my perspective is that if a block doesn't make sense on its face, then the first instinct should be to question the blocking admin, not necessarily to undo it. MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I'm just saying, if I got trigger-happy unblocking a bad block, it would be harder to give a sincere apology than if I got trigger-happy unlocking a good block. So even though I agree Slrubenstein should just apologize and make this bullshit RfC go away, I can empathize a little bit.

FWIW, if someone brought an RFC/U because of Charles Matthews' questionable block, my reaction would be similar: MathSci is already unblocked, so uh... what's the problem now? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the underlying block is no longer an issue. I think in this case the problem is that Charles perceives that Slrubinstein hasn't admitted fault, and might act similarly in the future. Whether that is a fair perception, I don't know... I think the RfC has degenerated to the point that parties are talking past each other, if not openly attacking each other. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My level of clue around this matter is pretty good, given that I actually know why the block occurred and have discussed this with several folks who are at very high clue levels. It would really help if people would tell Slrubenstein what is being said here--stop providing an excuse for this circus, you were wrong on a policy level, admit it already. Whatever Charles may or may not have done wrong does not get Slrubenstein off the hook for his own actions. When Slrubenstein intervened, I had already posed the necessary questions to Charles and was waiting for answers. Had my process been allowed to run to completion, I think there would have been an unblock and a lot less fuss. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

'(undent)' If we're going to start opening RfCs on admins because they did something boneheaded in the past and won't admit it.... oh man, I got a whole list! heh..

My position remains that RfC/U is for a pattern of user misconduct. Now, Elonka seems to be alleging a pattern of "unblocking allies" on the part of Slrubenstein, and I must admit I have not reviewed those allegations in depth. If that's what the RfC is really about, maybe we can talk about that.

I continue to feel that seeking this level of dispute resolution for disagreement over the handling of a single past incident is folly. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Kinda off-topic: Now I'm predisposed to giving good faith to Charles Matthews, considering he thinks that MastCell lacks competence. Anyone that intuitive ought to be right every time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles

File:Tige Andrews6.jpg

From left to right: Moreschi, JzG, Elonka, Jehochman

TimVickers suggested that you might be a good person to include in a podcast that Scartol and I are planning about controversial articles. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'll have to decline. It sounds interesting, though - I'll definitely give it a listen. Other people who actively police controversial articles include Moreschi (talk · contribs), JzG (talk · contribs), Elonka (talk · contribs), and Jehochman (talk · contribs) - you could try them if you'd like more participants. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We need a nickname. Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I always pictured you guys kind of like this: MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC) →

I understand. Thank you for the suggestions - they are much appreciated! Awadewit (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi (nee' Linc) reminds me of the Jew-fro I had as a teenager.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Literary references, and a request

Hey MastCell,

In my constant struggle for self-improvement, I've tried to be more like you and improve my contributions thru the use of literary references: User talk:Barneca/Archive 10#Kang, for example. I even quoted Voltaire in an RFA. So far, however, the hoi polloi seem unimpressed. Sigh.

So anyway, I'm going on a wikibreak for a while. Not a 100% one (I know from bitter experience that those are doomed to failure), but I'll be away enough that I wonder if you'd do me the same favor as last time, and kind of keep an eye on my talk page and help anyone incapable of reading the giant yellow notice. If it doesn't look like it's time sensitive, I'll get to it, but if it looks like someone's stressed out, and you're around, I'd appreciate the backup.

Cheers, thanks, etc. --barneca (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, when you said you quoted Voltaire at RfA, I was thinking you'd go with: "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." Sure, I'll watch your talk page, since you buttered me up. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

MastCell

First off please don't accuse me of being a sock, I do not appreciate frivolous accusations. 3RR does not apply to my edits, please read WP:BOLP. Removal of unsourced/poorly sourced contentious material from a bio does not merit a discussion. Youtube, mediamatters and random blogs are not reliable. Thank you. Fru23 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I would strongly urge against violating 3RR under the aegis of WP:BLP. You're removing material which is adequately sourced, in many cases (here, sources include the Southern Poverty Law Center and the New York Times; here, the New York Daily News; here, to Slate and Rolling Stone). I would advise you not to expect BLP protection for such deletions. On the other hand, the fact that you're already capable of wikilawyering about 3RR and BLP within 24 hours of your account's creation may suggest why I consider sockpuppetry a possibility. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Or that I actually read the rules before I do something and was a past IP editor. That section violates violates NPOV. Please read BOLP. Fru23 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) On second thought I will bring that up on the talk page before I remove it again. Fru23 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent idea. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Slate is not a reliable source for a bio, There was nothing under the times daily source and the Rolling Stone piece was not used in the article. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that sources in bios are meant to be neutral. Fru23 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong; consider yourself corrected -- sources must be reliable, articles must be presented neutrally. Mast, can you jump on an RFCU on this guy for me? I am in the middle of relocating to another state and just don't have the time. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Blaxthos is correct; sources must be reliable. For BLP's, this may disqualify openly partisan sources, like MediaMatters, though this is a matter for case-by-case discussion. On the other hand, sources like Slate, Rolling Stone, and the New York Times are generally acceptable for biographical articles, given their reputations for editorial oversight, fact-checking, and correction of factual errors. Again, these are issues to be resolved by discussion on the appropriate talk pages or through the dispute resolution pathway, rather than by edit-warring.

Regarding checkuser, I do not have a sense of which accounts might be related, so any checkuser request would be declined as "fishing". If you have more concrete suspicions of abuse, then they could be pursued. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Claims and refusals: The Other Side of AIDS

Re: your recent changes to The Other Side of AIDS. I understand WP:WTA and "claim", but I'm not sure I agree entirely with "refuse anti-HIV medications". The interviewees say they refuse the medications, but we have no independent evidence for or against their...err...claims. Could "state" or "say" represent this uncertainty without using "claim"? Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I was re-reading it, and it seemed a bit overly skeptical to assume that they were possibly lying and taking antiretrovirals on the side, which the wording seemed to suggest. I mean, maybe they are lying, but with no evidence one way or the other, it seemed a bit jaundiced to use "claims". "State" or "say" could be better in this context, as you suggest ("who say they have refused antiretroviral medication...") MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and please take a look at AN/I

Thanks for your kind comments about me, I'm really flattered by that. I've returned for at least a little while after getting three emails about the blocking of Kossack4Truth, etc. (only one from any of the accused editors). I looked at the AN/I discussion and became concerned about the justification for the blocks, particularly of K4T and ImNotObama, because I don't think the reasoning has been laid out well. I've made some points and asked some questions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reopening discussion to ask pertinent questions. Some of that relates to your rejection of K4T's unblock request. I don't question the good faith of any admins involved in this, least of all yours, but please take a look. I'd appreciate any response there from you. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it you might also want to look at my objections here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Closed Acorn AN/I endlessly being reopened. For a sick man who's "very weak" noroton sure has the energy for lots of typing, don't he?Bali ultimate (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep giving me diffs to collect. You are really over the line everywhere. Stop your ad hominem attacks or you will find yourself blocked.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the AN/I, and Noroton's request is entirely reasonable. Let's not speculate about peoples' health issues, OK, Bali? I'll comment at AN/I on my reasoning; certainly review by other admins is welcome, and Noroton is well within his rights to request it. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, MastCell. You're a stand-up guy. I consider the matter over. -- Noroton (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

arbitration

I've requested that your failure to request a checkuser and unblock be subject to arbitration. I wish you would just cooperate, unblock, and run a checkuser. If you demand that I denounce Kossack4Truth and demand that he be in jail in order to be unblocked, I will. Please. ImNotObama2 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is rather sad. Don't you have anything better to do? --Good Damon 03:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything at WP:RFAR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no arbcom case, just a request to file one left on AN/I and on a few people's talk pages. I've deleted the editor's notices from other users' talk pages and someone else deleted from AN/I. The account is either a real sockpuppet or a fake sockpuppet of ImNotObama, which is in turn an WP:SPA who existed only to argue on AN/I for unblocking some editors who were indef blocked as abusive sockpuppets of a banned user.Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's more to it than that. Take a look at ImNotObama's edits, and tell me if you don't think it's just another sock of BryanFromPalatine. I particularly like the way Bryan plays up the "I'm like totally a liberal guys, so all us liberals agree, right? Only, we gotta make sure we tell the truth about Obama and how evil he is... even though I totally support him, guys! Right? Right?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs)

My suspicion is that ImNotObama2 is not the same person as ImNotObama. I think there needs to be introduced some sort of method of validation of people on Wikipedia, similar to that used by other websites such as couchsurfing.com, etc where proof of address is made possible. This should make it a lot easier to reduce the accusations of sockpuppetry. What do you reckon? --Rebroad (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonymity is a thorny issue, but it's more or less central to this site's operation (contrast it with Citizendium, for example), so I think that arguing about it is mostly academic. It involves major tradeoffs. On the one hand, even moderately sophisticated sockuppeteers can abuse multiple accounts fairly easily and rely on the "reasonable doubt" inherent in technical means of confirming sockpuppetry. That's a downside. On the other hand, everyone starts on a more-or-less even footing and equal playing field - the system depends entirely on the reputation you acquire by your actions on-site, rather than on external factors. I see that as a plus. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Love this!

Dead on, and hilarious edit summary! seicer | talk | contribs 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... it was a bit tricky to get exactly the right number of o's in "Nooooooo....." MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SobreLyme.com

Hi,

You will not find a reference yet, since it is a brand new website, and was built by a famous Mexican singer who is involved and her doctors. I'm sorry if it is not a quality website, I speak Spanish and I thought it could be useful for Hispanic people living in the USA. Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a bad website. It may be excellent. I'm just saying that we should restrict links from Lyme disease to a handful of major organizations with established reputations, for two reasons: 1) there is a lot of bad information about Lyme on the Internet, and it can be hard to sort the good from the bad - better to insist on reputation upfront, and 2) Wikipedia isn't really intended to be a collection of useful links, and the link may be useful but not particularly encyclopedic. It may be worth adding to DMOZ, though. We can look to see if any of the major Lyme orgs (for example, the CDC) has information in Spanish; alternately, is there a Spanish-speaking government health agency (e.g. from Central or South America) which has published online info on Lyme? That might be a better link for our purposes. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you need translation help. The "About Us" link says they're working on it; [4] the "Contact us" page is nothing more than an AOL e-mail address; [5] and I find nothing anywhere on the site that qualifies it as a WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, sorry then. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize - thanks for trying to add useful information, and for coming by to discuss the issue. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, no problem. ;) --El Mexicano (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Another possible BryanFromPalatine sock, or am I seeing things?

I thought I should run this past you before putting together a formal incident report, because I'm afraid I might be seeing what isn't there. Considering how long and how frequently I and several other editors were abused by this particular puppeteer, I don't want to find myself seeing socks around every corner and under every rock. Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accidentally made a post here using his IP address, having logged out for some reason. Normally, I wouldn't think anything of it; people clear their caches, or use different computers, etc... But then he made this comment to User:Bali ultimate: You will notice that I recently signed a comment that I had missed, so you should be able to see that I am presently in Georgia. I do have plans to travel to Chicago next week, and I will have to ask you to assume good faith if I mistakenly forget to sign a comment while there.

The sockpuppet User:ImNotObama argued for being unblocked with this statement: "I am in the metro Atlanta area, not Chicago."

Is this sufficient evidence to merit a checkuser? I haven't had enough interaction with Die4Dixie to say his style is BryanFromPalatine's with any certainty, but his politics definitely match. Of course, politics has nothing to do with bad behavior, so I'm not sure whether I should be concerned or not. Your thoughts? --Good Damon 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Two things: one, the IP is registered to Valdosta State University. Valdosta is more than 200 miles from the city of Atlanta, and well outside metro Atlanta. Two, Die4Dixie is pretty much an open book in terms of their political leanings, whereas Bryan usually makes at least a ham-handed bid at subterfuge. I suppose that "accidentally" posting via IP and then calling attention to it might raise an eyebrow, as does the trip to Chicago, but coincidences happen. If there's reason for concern, you could contact a checkuser, but BryanFromPalatine has dozens of iterative loops of experience at evading checkuser, so I don't expect much in the way of technical confirmation. My gut instinct is that these are not related accounts. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe he's a sock of BfP (he deliberately exposed his VSU ISP on the Acorn page earlier, for some reason, though that's neither here nor there). He actually edits things here and there -- i just don't think there's enough speed or coffee in the world to fake this account given the rest of BfP's activities. In contact with the BfP guy? Maybe. Here's what I know: He's lobbying for lifting of the extent BfP blocks on AN/I for some reason.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And that reason is that I don't believe all of the blocks are good ones. It is always self serving to have editors with whom one disagrees banned.I had no idea who BFP until I was accused of being him. I have also edited from around the world. A person really intent on discovering my real identity wouldn't have that much trouble. I assure you that It is not Bryan and I don't even have any idea where Palatine is , but it is only a Google search away. A vast right -wing conspiracy that i am a member of some Palatinian cell? Please. I gave you the ability to figure out for yourself that I was not associated with the guy so that perhaps we could get on with the business of making an encyclopedia. Your hysteria was interfering with editing. Accept it for what it is. Some people actually have views that match a sock/puppet master's. What a small, nasty little world it would be if everyone agreed.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)173.20.104.99 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A few things, Die4Dixie:

First, I don't think you are a sockpuppet. MastCell has allayed my concerns there, which I recognized from the start as likely to be due to the recent abuse. I am glad I refrained from filing an incident report, because it would have been an incident report performed in error.
Secondly, I hope you'll forgive a little bit of overreacting on the part of the editors involved with this -- yes, including Bali. Now that it has died down, I'm hopeful that the nerves this incident rubbed raw will recover, and everyone will be able to edit amicably.
Third, I want to say I do understand your perspective. A bunch of editors you agreed with have turned out to be a single, long-term abuser; that isn't a pleasant experience, and I fully appreciate the desire to defend them.
But fourth, the blocks are good. 300wackerdrive edited solely from an IP address that was only ever used by BryanFromPalatine. Kossack4Truth edited only from an IP address in a residential neighborhood near there, and only at times that 300wackerdrive wasn't editing. And Kossack4Truth's modus operandi was identical to that of certain previous socks of BryanFromPalatine, making disingenuous claims about his politics while pushing precisely the opposite political POV. WorkerBee74 only edited from a mobile device -- a weird behavior in and of itself, as if someone would never get a chance to use a regular PC to log into Wikipedia -- so IP-based proof is impossible, but both his behavior and his timing for consensus vote-stacking was typical. And Curious bystander and Marx0728 are now proven sockpuppets by checkuser, having accidentally used the same IP address. As for behavior, all five accounts share the same editing style, the same penchant for leaving off edit summaries (or leaving inaccurate ones when they are used), and the same articles of interest. With savvy puppeteers who know how to use proxies and ssh tunnels to switch between IP addresses, it all has to come down to WP:DUCK, and these accounts definitely quacked. Now, this is all just my interpretation, as one of the aggrieved parties, but I feel the decisions of the various involved admins bear me out. --Good Damon 07:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Autism's False Prophets

[Barnstar moved to userpage] Eubulides (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; you're too kind. I really appreciate the breadth and quality of work you do. The kind words mean a lot coming from an editor as talented and judicious as yourself. Of course, it's all in a day's work for a paid biostitute like myself... :) MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL !! Ditto on the barnstar: it's rare to see such a clean, well-written article come up in so few edits. Beautiful work. DYK ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What's scary about the book is the author is threatened by the nutters. But I agree. And don't get a big head. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call

Sad, but true. Cheers!

By the way, I happened to see your note about ArbCom elections on Friday's talk page. If you or he were to run, I'd probably support you both. You both do a good job of keeping calm when dealing with utter nonsense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops - never mind. I just saw the note on your User page. Ah well. Keep fighting the good fight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd notice my vandalism of your userpage, but I couldn't resist. :) Thanks for the words of encouragement. MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone just fell off the wagon

I knew you couldn't resist. :) At least you held out longer than Boris in this contest.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The view you endorsed has been updated, so maybe you should take a second look - borrowing a phrase from Henry's cat. Verbal chat 09:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I already broke my personal vow not to comment there once, and it's been archived, so I don't think anything more needs to be said or done. Thanks for the heads-up, though. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr. Perfessor

[This is a copy of the message I posted to Charles Matthews' talk page.] This seems to be a sockpuppet account of User:Mervyn Emrys. Look at this diff [6]. The edits to the article on Lynton K. Caldwell seem to be a copyvio from an obituary reproduced here [7] from the Bloomington Herald Times. Much of the obituary was copied-and-pasted into the article. Isn't there a rule about sockpuppet accounts? This diff [8] seems to be unknowingly admitting the sockpuppetry, since the biographical material was added by User:Mervyn Emrys. Could someone possibly be playing the system? Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That is odd. I'm not sure if he's just looking for a rename or what. In any case, I'd prefer to let Charles Matthews handle this, if that's OK with you. If the accounts begin to be used to revert in tandem ,or in a clearly abusive fashion, then I'll get involved, but I think Charles is probably more au courant with the situation than I, and might be able to resolve it more effectively. Too many cooks and so forth. Feel free to ping me again if things change. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I was just testing the waters. I agree that it's odd. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I apparently have a fan club now [9]. I assume they all have a scoutmistress to give them advice if they need it. Mathsci (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you have to?

[Yanks at Bishzilla's leash. ] OMG, did you have to? She'll never shut up again! Bishonen | talk 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

Yes, he did have to. Get back in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Quandary

Hi MastCell, I just saw this diff [10] which seems to be yet another vicious personal attack on me from this user. What should I do? Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW the same user seems to be editing on behalf of the sockpuppet User:Dr. Perfessor [11] . Is there not a case for a block? Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah... you're seriously suggesting I block Elonka? That might be a wee bit controversial. In all seriousness: I don't read that first diff as a personal attack, but rather an attempt to apologize for an earlier inappropriate comment made via email. Re: Dr. Perfessor, since he's not currently blocked, I don't see it as a matter of editing on his behalf. In any case, at least in the second diff, I just see Elonka cleaning up and copyediting an article that Dr. Perfessor started - it's not like they're edit-warring in tandem or anything. I don't really see much of concern there. MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this statement: "Instead, my intent was to send it as a "heads-up" that you were starting to get involved with a user who had a history of behavior that might cause problems for you in the future" a personal attack? Why is she associating with this sockpuppet? My own theory is that she is upset by Charles Matthews' current attempts at mediation and is trying to throw a spanner in the works with some hope of baiting me. Just my two cents worth. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I know what's going on with Dr. Perfessor et al. I'm loathe to do anything that will sabotage Charles Matthews' efforts at mediation, and right now Dr. Perfessor doesn't appear to be doing anything overtly disruptive. Re: personal attacks, the diff expresses a critical opinion, but I wouldn't say it rises to the level of a personal attack - else we could never voice concern about another editor, right? If you think she's baiting you, all the more reason to just ignore it - my 2 cents, anyway. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good advice, MastCell. As always, you are very helpful :) Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi AS ?

Mastcell, considering this threat after a 3RR block, and the recent vandalism at Asperger syndrome, can you peek at it to see if you think semi-pro is needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Already protected. diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm too slow, was just coming back to let him know :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing ever happens on my talkpage, so I mope around on MastCell's like a gatecrasher at a more popular guy's party. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought I wore out my welcome after so many years of pestering you :-) May I ask a favor of one of you? WmC seems to be indicating I filed that 3RR incorrectly.[12] Apparently I'm too blonde, or too old, or too close to Orangemarlin's heart to figure out why. Can anyone take the time to educate me about how I should have submitted the report? The IP added the same text four times: what is the "previous version" mystery? Or, alternately, should I skip that 3RR page and go straight to an admin who can deal with my IQ deficiencies next time ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Previous version" link is supposed to establish that revert #1 is actually a revert. In the case of your report, the first revert you listed didn't match up with the "previous version", so it doesn't establish that first diff as a revert. Does that make sense? The process is so needlessly complicated - it takes me 10+ minutes to formulate a 3RR report that won't be rejected, and I have to question whether there are better uses of that time. You can try this labor-saving device - it can be useful, but your mileage may vary. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I lost the whole thing when I went looking for a diff to the 3RR warning, so it took me 20 (frustrating) minutes. No, I still don't understand "previous version". He inserted the text four times. Is the first time the previous version? So he only reverted three times, even though he inserted the text four times ? He changed the article four times in a few hours; is that not 3RR ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, no. If he inserted the text 4 times, then the first time was not a revert - only the 3 subsequent restorations of the text are technically reverts. Of course, the block is still appropriate, since 3 reverts is not an entitlement blah blah blah. It just underscores the problem with WP:AN3. A clueful admin will realize that this is edit-warring and apply a block regardless, whereas a less clueful one will reject the report on technical grounds. The fun part is waiting to see whether you'll get a clueful admin or not. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, then ... I got this far along on Wiki without understanding that four insertions was not 3RR .... yikes. Don't tell anyone else :-) Clueful admins ... now, there's a rare breed. Thanks, MC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not trolling this page enough. I'm trying to figure out how my heart has anything to do with Alzheimer's???? Now I remember why trolling here can be damaging to my health. The 3RR tool works pretty well, but you have to edit it to clean out the cruft. And Tim, please, MastCell's ego is big enough. Now you're calling him popular? Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm ... Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alzheimer's disease, doesn't an article have to be sorta close to your heart to go through the effort of bringing it to featured status? Or perhaps I'm still having cognitive issues ? :-) I didn't know Tim's talk page had gotten lonely; now I'll have to do something about that! We can't have lonely talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, my subtlety radar needs retuning!!! LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sensitivity training perhaps? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikiversity has a free online sensitivity training module... :) MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman case

Actually, a few of the conclusions of the case are provably false - Finding of Fact #4 says I was in a conttent dispute with Hoffman, when I had last edited the page 7 months previous to blocking him. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

sources

Hello. I disagree with you to the fact that you've eliminated the sources that I have inserted the voice causes of autism. Most of them are also on PubMed therefore are reliable. [13], [14],[15],[16] The Lancet study is very interesting.

The studies that I have shown you are very important and are all listed on PubMed.They are very recent.They are also briefly mentioned in fr.autisme [17].The Australian study is awaiting publication on PubMed as it is very recente [18]. In your opinion what of them are more reliable?What can I put on (Wiki) Causes of autism (Mercury)? Perhaps you can remove the older studies (2003-2006) and put in place those of 2007-2008 (2 or 3 most recent).Regards--Trèspacifique (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest we discuss this at Talk:Causes of autism. You are both selecting a small and slanted subset of primary evidence and inaccurately representing some of these sources in your edits here:

You misrepresent the Lancet source, saying that it was "similar" to a flawed study which correlated power-plant mercury emissions with autism. In fact, the Lancet article dealt with neurotoxicity in general (not autism specifically) of a wide range of substances. For mercury in particular, the Lancet article discusses methylmercury toxicity in terms of its well-known clinical presentation, which is different from that of autism. In other words, the article notes the well-known fact that methylmercury is neurotoxic, but does not claim that it causes autism.
You cite two studies by Mark Geier from low-impact journals. Geier's claims are, to put it very mildly, controversial, and do not reflect expert opinion on the subject. Our article on Mark Geier contains more detail.
An "unpublished" PDF hosted by an advocacy group which directly contradicts overwhelming expert opinion and scientific evidence is not particularly useful as an encyclopedic source, particularly not for the blanket claim you attributed to it ("A recent Australian study underlines that there is a strong suspicion that mercury causes autism"). When/if this study is published in the peer-reviewed literature, it can be examined and synthesized into the huge mass of already-existing data, but until then, it's hard to give it much weight.
Finally, you assert that PubMed indexing makes a reference "reliable". PubMed indexing is a good starting point, but not every paper indexed there is equally reliable. This review (PMID 15342856) is a useful starting point to understand the differences in methodologic quality between the various studies of mercury and autism.

Basically, the situation is this: there is an easily sourced, overwhelming scientific consensus by expert bodies, supported by reams of high-quality primary evidence, that mercury in vaccines (and mercury in general) does not contribute to autism. What you are doing is selecting and highlighting (sometimes erroneously) a small handful of often-deeply-flawed studies which contradict this consensus. Wikipedia needs to maintain a proportionate representation of expert opinion (see WP:WEIGHT), and our sourcing guidelines for medical articles explicitly advise against cherry-picking the primary literature to contradict or "debunk" clearly expressed expert opinion - this is a form of editorial synthesis. I hope that sheds some light on why I objected to the edits in question. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

First regards and thanks for having responded to me.

The Lancet study also mentions the autism and says that the industrial chemicals as the methylmercury can cause neuro-developmental disorders such as autism.

I found the entire text of the Lancet that says:Neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy are common, costly, and can cause lifelong disability. Their causes are mostly unknown. A few industrial chemicals (eg, lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], arsenic, and toluene) are recognised causes of neuro-developmental disorders and subclinical brain dysfunction. Exposure to these chemicals during early fetal development can cause brain injury at doses much lower than those affecting adult brain function. [19]

I also found another study of Geier on an important peer-reviewed scientific journal Journal of the Neurological Sciences [20] What do you think?
The Australian study has already been published in a scientific journal,International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine (2008) This scientific journal could be reliable.

(If you prefer you can answer me in my talk too). --Trèspacifique (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I think the quote you cite from the Lancet article illustrates the point I was making. The article discusses the neurotoxicity of methylmercury. Neurotoxicity is a broad term. The article goes on to make quite clear that the neurotoxicity of methylmercury does not consist of autism, nor do its symptoms particularly resemble those of autism. Your summary ("industrial chemicals as the methylmercury can cause neuro-developmental disorders such as autism") is an incorrect interpretation of the article, making liberal and inappropriate use of "such as", hence my objection.

I already mentioned the issues with the Geiers' studies; even in a best case where the criticism of their methodology is disregarded, they are at odds with higher-quality evidence as well as expert interpretation of available data, and this would need to be reflected, at a minimum, if they're used on Wikipedia.

I've found at least the abstract of the Australian study; the lead author is David Austin (for future reference) but it does not appear to be up on PubMed yet. The article expresses a view directly counter to prevailing expert opinion and scientific consensus. While the article could potentially be used, it must be presented in that context, not as a definitive "rebuttal" to the mountains of evidence and expert opinion indicating that mercury is not a contributor to autism. The article makes a number of assertions which are highly debatable, if not directly rejected by experts in the field - for example, it asserts that "mercury poisoning is known to cause symptoms consistent with autism". Several sources have reported quite the opposite - that mercury poisoning causes a distinct neurologic toxodrome which has little overlap with autism. This is followed by other assertions which are, at best, highly questionable: that "animal modeling supports the link" and that mercury levels are "higher in the blood and urine of autistic children." To make these claims, one would have to selectively rely upon a small handful of questionable and sometimes unreproducible data while rejecting mountains of stronger evidence to the contrary (but that's just my editorial opinion; the bigger issue is context and undue weight). MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again; you rightly say While the article could potentially be used, it must be presented in that context. In that case I would say on Wikipedia:Causes of autism (Mercury): A 2008 Australian study argues the thesis that autism is caused by mercury poisoning. However this study could be debatable. What do you think? How you would like to express (or convey) this study in a simple sentence on Wikipedia:Causes of autism (Mercury)? --Trèspacifique (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the best next step would be to take that question to Talk:Causes of autism, where not only the two of us but also other interested editors could comment and provide suggestions. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok,see Talk:Causes of autism [21] and then give me there some suggestions--Trèspacifique (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

reason #4632 that it pisses me off you aren't running for a position on ArbCom this year

[22] --barneca (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, when I ran last year, I got this kind of objective criticism. This year, instead, I get a bunch of notes and emails from editors I respect, stroking my ego. This is a much better deal. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Autism's False Prophets

On 19 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Autism's False Prophets, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! My first DYK, and I didn't even have to do anything (other than work on the article itself). I like the way this works. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

AAPS

I thought you might enjoy this. This is from the lead of Conservapedia's Obama entry:

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"[23]

Yilloslime (t) 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The Conservapedia article is delightful from start to finish; I really should read their website more often. I think their carefully compiled circumstantial case that Obama is a Secret Muslim^® exemplifies the site's intellectual integrity. Don't you see, Obama's Secret Service codename is "Renegade", and as everyone knows, a renegado was originally a medieval Spaniard who had renounced Christianity in favor of Islam. Could he be any more obvious?

And consider the following tidbit: Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet. Does this Conservapedia nugget describe a) George W. Bush, b) Sarah Palin, or c) Barack Obama?

Thanks for the AAPS piece, too. I did wonder where that light was coming from, and why I felt compelled to vote for Obama. Now it all makes sense. Is there anything that neurolinguistic programming can't do? MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Every now and then I stumble upon your talk page, and I fall down laughing. Perhaps you should add cat:Wikipedia Administrator's with a sense of humor to your dream.--Tznkai (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also a redlink, believe it or not. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Could you take a look at User:AntonioMustDie, or point someone appropriate in that direction. Just about announces himself as a sock ofUser:Karmaisking. Thanks in advance. JQ (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and have blocked the account. MastCell ^Talk 06:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Could I also ask you to take a look at John Lott. There are an awful lot of SPA editors, all of whom seem quite alike. And the article itself gives rise to some questions as to who these SPA editors might be (see the Mary Rosh section). JQ (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: the situation at John Lott, that is quite interesting stuff. Let me think about it and look into it.

Re: Karmaisking, the good news is that we cleaned out a few additional socks; the only really active one was Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk · contribs), whom I'd chalked up as a garden-variety Austrian-School crank/Paultard but is apparently linked to KiK. I don't envy you dealing with economics articles - the Austrian-School POV-pushing and undue weight seems worse than even some of the fringe-medical stuff. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

He's back again, would you believe [24].JQ (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet again as User:BulliesForBrains. Is there something that can be done about this kind of vandalistic socking.JQ (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And now User:Angels...Pins...Whatever JQ (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mail?

Nothing yet? MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, not from you... should I be expecting something? If it's been awhile, might want to resend it. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

On Jpgordon's page, you said I'd have email from you. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad - I meant I was emailing Jpgordon, not you. I think we're all on the same page now. Sorry for the confusion. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Xoriat

Hello,

Could you please restore the edit history of Xoriat for me? If you like, you can redirect it to Outer Plane. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Done; I restored the page history of Xoriat and redirected it to Outer Plane. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

loose ends regarding those indef blocks

Hi MastCell. I'm currently trying to satisfy myself that the indef blocks on K4T and ImNotObama were justified. It would certainly help if their userpages were updated to point to concise diffs and evidence. So far, this doesn't appear to be the case. Due to the lack of evidence, I would like to escalate this further. Please could you let me know what would be the procedure to follow? Many thanks, --Rebroad (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to decline your first request. I feel that far too much time has already been wasted on these accounts, with 2nd through 18th chances to shape up and endless wikilawyering in the face of obviously abusive editing and sockpuppetry. There have been many WP:AN/I threads and sockpuppetry cases detailing block rationales and sockpuppetry evidence, so I'll ask you to look through those.

Regarding "escalation", the issue has already been discussed at WP:AN/I, where there appeared to be strong support for the blocks. Other avenues of appeal are described here; the blocks could be discussed on the unblock mailing list (unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org) or the Arbitration Committee could be contacted. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been caught

[[25]]. Poor Verbal is having his reputation besmirched by being associated with me. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of a Fortnight's Length

Thanks again. :) Could you please also restore the edit history of Battle of a Fortnight's Length? If you like, you could redirect that one to Great Kingdom. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Restored and redirected. MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! :) BOZ (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Serenity and John Lott

There is something a bit smelly about this. I notice that Serenity has not responded to your request. I would not be surprised if there wasn't a lot of skullduggery going on with this article, which I have never been happy with since I first saw it. Any suggestions as to how to identify if there really are any problems and how to clean them and the article up? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have some thoughts. I'll email you, today or tomorrow. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed here, as the ban of sockpuppets has been followed by an influx of IP editors.JQ (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that semiprotection, temporarily, would be useful to help sort this out, and I've applied it. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you're Jewish

I can't link to the article given Wikipedia's confusing and sometimes arcane laws about linking to attack sites, but you have been designated either Jewish or a cyber Jew by the good folks at Encyclopedia Dramatica. As an MoT, you'll have to do something like watch the bacon article for anything bad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but remember, I'm a self-hating cyber Jew. Jagz (or whatever name he's using over at ED) is not particularly creative, is he? MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As interesting as your comments were in that AN/I link (what a waste of time, even by Wiki-drama's pathetic standards), did you notice that the real Ray Ray posted?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those were the good old days, before he became a fellow traveler. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you're Paranoid

Sad. Very, very sad. Why don't you just curl up under Mommy's bed. You'll be safe there. Little Boy. - MakEatsFannie (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

MEF looks like a troll account. I would delete the personal attack as a courtesy, but I forget whether you are one of those who likes to preserve everything for the record. Plus it's late, I should probably do some bed curling myself. Take care, Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Karmaisking (talk · contribs). No biggie. I prefer to leave stuff here, at least till I've seen it, but thanks for looking in. MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just FTR, OpiumTastesLikeImperialism (talk · contribs) is also Karmaisking (talk · contribs). --Bonadea (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And almost certainly another User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams who has started some edits on unrelated topics, while commenting on talk pages of the usual, now semi-protected articles.JQ (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reason and Compassion are the marks of a Sustainable Civilization. And plumbers are more valuable than useless academics and philosophers.

I'm going to try to appeal to your highly evolved sense of reason and compassion once, and once only. Systemic risk is currently an embarrassment. Please either revert it or get someone to edit and improve it. I will not edit any WP page further, unless barbarism rips into a delicately, precisely created page again, in my field of interest (where I know my stuff). That field is admittedly very narrow. Which is why you've sp'd only a few pages, knowing they're the only ones I'm interested in improving.

If your highly evolved sense of reason and compassion cannot extend to justifiably removing the sp on systemic risk, please at least revert the ridiculous stuff-up on credit squeeze. It should start with the term "credit tightening". Squeeze has definitively been relegated to fringe status because it can be used in the context of credit crunch or credit tightening. My earlier edit simply clarified this obvious error that has been discussed ad nauseam and resolved. This has nothing to do with me. Why punish WP readers with these petty games? It's INSANE. You know. INSANE. As in "irrationally vindictive". Psychotically destructive. Unable to think long-term. Unable to see interconnections and interdependencies. Overly focused on one's own interests, to the exclusion of any interest in the wellbeing of others in society. You know. INSANE.

Come on. You're behaving irrationally. Look in the mirror. See how childish this has all become. Come on. Let's be reasonable. Where's your sense of justice? - FreddieMakLovesMae'sFannie (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, credit squeeze has been fixed by merging it and credit tightening into credit crunch in line with consensus (may need semi-protection). I'll take a look at systemic risk shortly. Now please go away.JQ (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationality is in the eye of the beholder. From my perpsective, it's irrational to expend a huge amount of time creating sockpuppets and posting rants here with the knowledge that any edits made will rapidly be reverted. If you (Karmaisking) feel that strongly, then do something about it. You live in a democratic nation. Surely many means of influencing public opinion are available to a person of your talents. I would submit that your activities here don't really further your cause - not only do you come off as irrationally obsessed and unconvincing, but the time you're investing could presumably be better spent on more productive approaches to effecting your goals.

By the way, I agree about plumbers. God bless them. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"You live in a democratic nation." HAHAHA! You're either very funny with a highly evolved, ironic, Libertarian sensibility - or have no idea. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and will assume it's the former rather than the latter. That joke gave me the best laugh of the day. Thanks. Much better than my crass attempts at humor. And I'm thankful you understand my point about the plumbers. Without the plumbers we'd be neck high in. In. In. Stuff. Without academics, we'd lack the ability to condescend to each other. No biggie. - Intheenditsallfattail (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Amalgam exposure

How do you wish to do the fact justice that it is terribly misleading to imply that Huggins may not have had valid reasons to diagnose mercury toxicity in patients with a history of exposure to amalgams, even if they had subsequently been removed. --Alterrabe (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question as you've phrased it. In any case, this might be better discussed at Talk:Hal Huggins, where other editors can comment as well. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have rephrased it at the page you suggest.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My editor review

Thanks for stepping in. The situation there was starting to get rather stressful for me, and I appreciate the way you were able to defuse things a bit. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:MED#Drug_Information_in_Wikipedia

Just saw this now. Apparently JFW suggested Fvancellos to write a Letter to the Editor, and you seemed willing to write one too. Are you working on one? Would you be interested in working with Fvancellos? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to collaborate (JFW has been in contact with me about it via email). I'm not interested in writing one on my own, or even cosigning one, because I value my pseudonymity, but I'd be happy to contribute pro bono. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"use of socks to politick"

I haven't payed much attention to ArbCom's past proceedings, but wasn't User:Wikitumnus allowed to participate in the Lar/SlimVirgin case without being publicly linked to her other account (which still has the admin bit)? I'm not taking a stance here, just trying to figure out what the most recent precedent is. Thanks, Pcap ping 18:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea who participated in the Lar/SlimVirgin case, because a) most of it was conducted off-wiki, and b) it kinda epitomized everything I think is wrong with Wikipedia's focus, so I ignored it. I don't think that's a particularly apt comparison in any case. But whatever. I think it's a) completely wrong in this specific case, and b) a horrible precedent in general. If people don't understand why, then I currently lack the energy and willpower to convince them. MastCell ^Talk 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence removal - Durga's Trident

Since I've been e-mailed a few times by your removal, and I assume you've been poked and prodded by it as well:

Durga's Trident was blocked by an arbiter, and instructed to submit private evidence the same way everyone else does, through e-mail. I make no statement now on whether or not it is reasonable for an alternate or sockpuppet account to be set up for submitting evidence in general or specific, but the call was made by an arbiter, and the clerks serve the Committee. In other words its not my call. Durga's Trident's evidence was removed by User:MastCell after the account was blocked by an arbiter, and I fully endorse MastCell's actions as appropriate once the block and instructions were made.--Tznkai (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable that an indef-blockable offense be reverted. Pcap ping 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't heard a peep about the removal - I guess people know better than to try to reason with me. :) Anyhow, I don't think the rationale is secret or complex. The decision to block the account was taken by an Arbitrator, though I agree with it 200% and would probably have done it myself at some point, for the same reasons. Anyone can email evidence to the Committee for private consideration if they're concerned about reprisal. But you don't get to make public accusations against another editor at ArbCom while hiding behind a throwaway account - that's sort of the definition of "avoiding scrutiny". I feel 90% certain I know who the account belongs to, but given the 10% margin of error I'll leave things there for now. MastCell ^Talk 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems a good standard practice to adopt. Perhaps you could update the relevant policy page(s): WP:SOCK, and one of the ArbCom "howtos"? (I confess to not having read the latter) Pcap ping 13:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated WP:SOCK myself. Let's see if it sticks. Pcap ping 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of updating policy - I've found it to be a huge time sink with virtually no payoff - but more power to you. Maybe I'll take a quick look. A relevant ArbCom finding is here: "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." Obviously, internal project-related discussions would include ArbCom cases. I understand that ArbCom doesn't set "precedents" per se, but still, this is really just a formalization of existing best practices - socks should not be used in these venues. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A thought

As much to distract myself from pressing deadlines as anything else, isn't there at some point where we undertake things for the sake of the community and not beyond that? I think primarily of cases of harassment. You can of course make the argument that harassment damages morale, which damages editing environment, which damages the encyclopedia, but what if it doesn't? The behavior guidelines are there to create an environment where a wiki functions, this is obviously true, but it seems that sometimes our mantra on protecting the encylopedia first and foremost is at best academic and at worse leading us to a distopic utilitarian model: how many featured articles grants you the ability to harm less valuable community members?--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you already predicted the argument I'd make: an unpleasant editing environment does directly harm the goal of creating a solid reference work, since we rely on attracting and retaining volunteers to reach that goal. People won't enjoy working in an environment where harassment and incivility are the norms - they won't come here, and they certainly won't stick around. End result: the encyclopedia suffers.

I'm not a big believer in the idea that FA's buy you license to be rude, but I wouldn't frame the issue in those terms to begin with. I'm more concerned with situations where we endlessly tolerate editors who degrade the quality of the encyclopedia out of some misguided notion of equal time.

An illustration: let's suppose that an editor is tendentiously pushing a single non-mainstream viewpoint - let's say scientific racism. He becomes locked in an intractable dispute with other editors who push back in favor of more mainstream viewpoints. In the course of the dispute, both parties engage in incivility - the "mainstream" editors to a greater degree than the scientific-racist editor.

Approach A: Chastise both groups for incivility (coming down harder on the "mainstream" editors), on the basis that admins must be "content-agnostic" when dealing with such disputes.
Approach B: Chastise the "mainstream" editors for incivility, but come down harder on the editor who is pushing an agenda which violates content policies and harms the encyclopedia's aspirations to seriousness and respectability.

My point is that we should prefer Approach B. It doesn't mean that editors "earn" the right to be rude with good content contributions - it just means that we recognize that civility is a means to an end, and treat it as such. I really believe in civility - I try my best to stay civil (even in the face of provocation), but not because I'm afraid of being blocked or punished.

As a digression: editing controversial articles on Wikipedia can be very stressful. We need to realize that it's simply not human nature to be relentlessly civil and pleasant in the face of abuse, provocation, or even just stress. In real life, you have outlets and safety valves: if a problem or person is frustrating you, you can complain to your friends, or vent to a coworker. Wikipedia doesn't really provide any such outlets - the prevailing expectation seems to be that a "model" editor will be relentlessly pleasant no matter what sort of provocation or intransigence they're thrown. You could point to Giano and ScienceApologist as exceptions - as editors with long histories of incivility who are continually "excused" - but I'd point to their mile-long block logs as evidence proving my point. But I digress.

Anyhow, I'm not looking for people who think that quality content contributions earn someone a license to be a dick. I certainly don't believe or think that way. I do want ArbCom members who will look beyond superficial civility, who will view such matters of civility in their entire context rather than as a series of diffs, and who understand what it's like to be on the front lines dealing with editors whose disruptive and destructive editing is ignored because they remain superficially civil.

Not sure if that answers your question... though on grounds of sheer obfuscating verbosity, perhaps I am qualified to be on ArbCom... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning: disorganized thoughts follow. I guess my point was we have to admit to ourselves that we do on some level, by every functional definition, care about the community for its own. When we talk about "encyclopedia first" we're conversing in the land of principles, and principles are best tested by looking at their logical extremes, it is there we learn their dangers. I guess what I'm saying is, if we really acccept that the content comes not only first, but only, we have to accept the position that being brilliant buys you a pass on everything else as a reasonable justifiable argument. As far as the difficulties maintaining civility, its really quite easy I think, in "real life" we learn to do it because there is someone right across from us triggering our social and biological imperatives to shut up and not be a twit. I started out editing on the abortion article and earned my mop based in part on my ridiculously civil behavior. I have a hard time believing that I'm all that exceptional. I also think that my commitment to civility had a basic and practical result: it allowed everyone to stay focused. Personality conflicts do nothing but distract. You have a good point that its not "natural" for us to maintain infinite patience, but thats why we have, or at least used to have (in my nostolgia anyway) a culture that suggests cooling off, forgiving and forgetting, and otherwise not making a big deal out of occasional lapses into barbarism.

In the ideal world, conduct would be the only thing we ever have to manage, because a non mainstream view will simply get drowned out by the mainstream majority. Obviously there are problems involving interest and stubborness and system gaming, but I'd argue that allowing our incivil but correct editors extra rope creates an editing environment where stubborness and system gaming are selected for. Our commitment to content neutral admins comes as the inevitable and ugly result from us trusting our admins less and less: where admins are no longer leaders in dispute resolution, but traffic cops. Really, admins shouldn't have to come down hard on either editor per se, just explain convincingly that they need to work together and that there are guidelines, and that Wikipedia represents the mainstream view, and thats just the way it is, etc etc. Mindnumbing and aggravating, sure, but isn't that the whole point of being an administrator and experienced Wikipedian? Mind you, this is for pedestrian conflicts, the longer a minority editor is around the more likley they've either already gotten it, or regressed into some sort of bizzare gamespace, or bad faith.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were looking for arbcommers that handed out dickery hall passes, but your user page made me think, and this was the result.--Tznkai (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, no offense taken. A few thoughts about the practical aspects I've encountered:

"In an ideal world... a non mainstream view will simply get drowned out by the mainstream majority." Yes, this generally happens even in the real world. The problem is that on Wikipedia, the editing population at a low-profile fringe article is highly skewed. For instance, in the past on AIDS denialism, it was not uncommon to have AIDS denialists at even strength or even outnumbering "regular" editors, despite the fact that it's a tiny-minority viewpoint in the real world. That's self-selection, because the 99.9999% who accept the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS probably never really think twice about it, while the few who dispute it think about little else. It's the mainstream view that's in danger of being drowned out. The challenge: how can a user-edited article proportionately represent reality when the sample of editors working on it is highly skewed toward a fringe viewpoint?
I totally agree that a commitment to civility makes you a more effective editor. But by realizing this, you are demonstrably in the minority of Wikipedians. It's blindingly obvious to any thinking person that the one who "loses" a dispute on Wikipedia is not the person with the weaker argument, but the person who loses their cool first. But very few people make the obvious logical leap and view civility as in their own best interests. The handful of disruptive or agenda-driven editors who realize this, and who use civility as a tool, are extraordinarily hard to deal with in Wikipedia's existing structures.

I'm actually strongly in favor of encouraging and even "enforcing" civility, but I also feel strongly that blocks and "civility paroles" are not the way to go. I've settled on trying to model the kind of civility I'd like to see, and preaching the pragmatic aspects of civility, but I don't think it's gotten very far. What do you think is the best way to promote civility and a better editing environment, in a specific and practical sense? Not to put you on the spot - I'm really open to brainstorming at this point since I don't have any great ideas. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be excessively lame here for a moment, and go back to my otherwise useless teacher education classes: you model it. You teach by example, and you cannot help but by doing it. We model the behavior we want, and when we see people acting in ways we don't want, we do something to make those people rethink their decision, especially because we don't want people modeling after them. Without naming names, we don't want a wiki full of brilliant jackasses, we want a wiki full of brilliant nice guys. We're not going to get it, but we want to select for it.

As far as the selection bias, yes, thats a major problem. The vast majority of reasonable people also tend to cover their own ass when it comes to controversy: they are reluctant to get involved. Ideally the RfC process is supposed to fix that but we all know how well that nonsense works. Wikipedia only functions properly when people participate, so the solution I think is to be found in encouraging participation, not in selectively removing troublesome editors. Think of how many articles are almost soley edited by a single brilliant correct jackass and a single brilliant incorrect jackass. Removing the incorrect editor still leaves us with overly skewed articles.

Also, points to us for having a productive conversation on Wikipedia.--00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that participation is key; the best way to deal with POV-pushing is to shine a spotlight on it. The fringe theories noticeboard has been very valuable in this regard, in my experience. Once a few experienced editors get involved, a lot of problems clear themselves up. Good editors need to be supported. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the key is right there: good editors need to be supported - not given longer leashes but back up well before anything block worthy happens.--22:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your vote

First off, thanks for your vote. It's appreciated. As for recusal, I understand where you're coming from on this, and I wanted to point you at a comment I made on my Vote Talk Page, with my feelings on recusing in situations where I have strong opinions, one way, or the other. [26]. Again, thanks, and I hope this at least alleviates some of your concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I'm remembering that we had some email correspondence where you addressed that concern as well, to my satisfaction. Maybe my vote came across more negatively than I meant it to. I do support your candidacy, and I think you've done a lot of good work. I like that you're fearless in taking on contentious issues, and I think your judgement is generally very good. You'd be a good Arbitrator. I hope it works out - even if not, I have a lot of respect for you, so please take the vote in that spirit. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

Hi there! I noticed you opposed me, and I was wondering what concerns you had about my candidacy and if I might be able to clarify anything? Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I've been trying to leave at least a brief rationale for my votes, and I forgot to do so on your vote page. I remember being annoyed by rationale-less "opposes" when I ran last year, so I apologize. Briefly, I don't think we've interacted much, but I have a positive impression of you as a good admin and editor. Mostly, my concern here is that your statement seems populist - faster cases, more boldness, more common sense - but not very specific. I'm always wary when people pledge to speed up ArbCom - I think the issue there is so systemic that a single person, however motivated, is unlikely to be able to fix it. At the very least, specifics would be important.

Other specific concerns: I feel pretty strongly that civility "parole" and civility restrictions are problematic and ineffective on a basic, conceptual level, while you stated that the problem lies with the implementation (the admins at WP:AE) rather than with the concept.

I'm sorry, and please don't take it personally; like I said, my general impression of you is quite positive, but given that I don't have direct interaction with you to fall back on to reassure me, I have enough relatively minor concerns that I have to vote "oppose" at this juncture. Best of luck, in any case, and happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't take it personally at all! I appreciate your kind sentiments very much, and am glad to see the rationale behind your vote.

My statement is intentionally populist, because these are things that the community and I want to see happen with ArbCom. While I understand the wariness towards candidates who urge such measures with little ability to get them done, I believe that it has to start somewhere and that by electing editors such as myself we can start to see real reform. I tried to give more specifics in my answers to the numerous questions posed to me. Both Newyorkbrad and FT2 have proposed some excellent packages of reforms for ArbCom, but here's what I would propose (these are incredibly rough starting points that I'm thinking up as I sit here):

Problem 1: Cases are too slow.

Solution 1: Built-in timers on cases. Two weeks for the evidence phase, two weeks for the workshop phase, one week to vote on proposed decisions. ArbCom would have the power to extend these on a discretionary basis.

Solution 2: Case bundling. Instead of forcing Arbitrators to sift through tons of evidence and diffs, appoint a few clerks as devil's advocates whose sole duty is to bundle the cases into neat, readable packages.

Solution 3: Allow for in absentia proceedings. Since parties to cases do not have to provide testimony (the evidence is already available in the various MediaWiki logs), cases should not grind to a halt due to lack of participation, especially if we appoint devil's advocates.

Problems 2 and 3: Boldness and common sense.

This comes from a change in thinking and as such is more difficult to substantially show how I would change it with policy. However, I would change it with thinking. ArbCom needs new members, not just the same old ones. ArbCom needs people who haven't fought the same fights since time immemorial, who haven't been fixtures in the dramasphere, and who don't have preconceived notions about the way things should be.

A new approach needs to be taken to our vested contributors. Rather than needlessly keep around dead weight whilst driving away newer editors, we need to solidify my "House test" as accepted doctrine. The crux of it, "Does the editor's contributions to the encyclopedia outweigh their detriment to the community?", should be applied to any controversial vested contributors who comes before ArbCom.

As for the civility sanctions aspect of your concerns, I must admit that while I do support them, that support is weak at this point. The Giano fiasco, while possibly just a fluke due to the nature of the case and participants, was so excessively dramatic that I can't see myself supporting future civility-based sanctions. I won't lie to you and say I'll rule it out completely, but I'm now extremely hesitant. I do think a large part of the problem with current discretionary sanctions lies with enforcement. The administrators need to be aware of when they should and shouldn't sanction, especially when it relates to prior involvement with the sanctionee. ArbCom needs to take a greater role in explaining their decisions rather than just letting them drift in the wind.

I'm glad to see that you've thought through the reasons for your vote, and I'm relieved it's for legitimate reasons. While I hope I can sway your vote, I'm pleased to see that it at least has some rationale behind it. Thank you very much! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom and recusal

In the spirit of your suggestion, I have attempted to craft a statement to better define when I would recuse. I have noted this on the voting talk page and the statement can be found at User:Vassyana/Recusal. Please share your thoughts. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to draft it - I think it looks good. Honestly, I'm not really worried about you, because you have the self-awareness to think these things through. It did seem like it might reassure some of the "oppose" voters to see something in writing; thanks for taking the time. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your apology

Is acceptable. I have put my pistols away for now - but be warned, if you interfere further my honor will require that we meet at dawn. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that's what I call "dispute resolution". Though I think you should at least have your seconds file an RfC beforehand. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A clean shot through the heart is the best way to avoid on-Wiki drama. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate it when one admin tries to get the upper hand on another. Sending to gulag. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can tell you [Tim] that in my professional experience, there is nothing "clean" about a penetrating injury to the heart. But beyond that technical quibble, I agree with the sentiment. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is compulsory editing good, bad, or a little of both?

MastCell, I reverted some copyvio and otherwise not-so-great edits at HIV vaccine and Antiretroviral drug yesterday, in the process noticing that a good number of the recent editors shared an identical suffix to their usernames. This and the similar pattern of editing led me to file a checkuser request, answered by Luna Santin as "possible" and deferred because the case was, well, strange and not conclusive. I did some more digging and found a syllabus for an honours biology course at the uni suggested by the username suffix. These users are apparently different individuals taking a course in which a full half of their grade derives from compulsory Wikepedia "integration", as their professor puts it.

I've emailed with the course director and also requested comment from Luna Santin; do you have any thoughts on this?

It seems to me that requiring participation is counterproductive to the project for at least two reasons, the first being that it encourages edits of the sort I've been reverting and the second being that grades are a form of compensation, i.e. conflict. It must also be cruelly confusing to students...having to copy information into, rather than from, Wikipedia!

Regards, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... not the first time this has come up - the most memorable prior example can be seen here and here. I can understand why an instructor might think this a reasonable assignment, but it inevitably causes problems.

I think a friendly and non-demanding email to the course director is the best approach (for the alternative, see the links I just provided). Just outline where the problems come from, and maybe gently suggest some better ways of utilizing Wikipedia. If the accounts aren't particularly active, maybe nothing more needs to be done at present. Sometimes it works best to have a non-anonymous editor make actual email/telephone contact with the course director. Luna Santin might have some good suggestions. Let me know how it turns out, and if I can be of further assistance. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the example; fortunately, this one doesn't quite make that drama grade... I have emailed with the course director, thanking her for her interest and intentions and relating my concerns. There are obviously no bad intentions on her part. I feel that forcing participation (in anything, really, not just Wikipedia editing) is a bad idea, but the course director disagrees, and I'll leave it at that unless further problems arise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick question (in the sense that it's alive, not necessarily that it's short)

Okay, so I don't totally grok this: People think I'm a good candidate based on my history and judgement, but not platform? I had expected almost the opposite - certainly I've made seemingly unpopular decisions, and seemingly people have been frustrated with ArbCom's lack of action --- although obviously the FT2/SlimVirgin blow-up has soured people a lot on a stricter ArbCom, I had some sense of frustration during the 22nd or 23rd week of OMNIBUS, their lack of action on Mantamoreland, ... and so I'm still a little puzzled otherwise - and certainly people who've had bad experiences with me won't always be completely frank in their opposes (certainly one or two I can pick out, anyhow).

It's not that I'm not serious, say, but that I am coming at it somewhat differently. I felt that a hanging judge was an option the community should have during the election and that it didn't really exist. Much like how I like having the Communist Parties on the ballot, but don't vote for them, I guess. And maybe my hyper-blunt tone was a little over the top (if "maybe" is a synonym for "definitely"). Wily D 22:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Smells like a sock

Iksel (talk · contribs). I have no idea whose it might be, something doesn't look right. Yilloslime (t) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, almost certainly a sock. My gut says Scibaby (talk · contribs). Raul654 is the expert - I'd email him or leave him a note. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See #7 here. A very reliable indicator, in my experience. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bingo - score one for gut instinct, though I guess in retrospect it was pretty obviously Scibaby. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IPSID

Had a case today I think! Refractory iron deficiency anemia with normal endoscopies and small bowel imaging but CT scan showed adenopathy in the abdomen. Did a capsule today and it showed these neat confluent nodules in the proximal jejunum that were straight out of an endoscopic textbook. I thought it was very neat (and was surprised IPSID was a redlink -- we'll change that). Hope you are well buddy -- Samir 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. I've never seen a case, but my understanding is that it's rare outside the Middle East and Africa. Was the patient an immigrant? (Actually, don't answer that - just testing your commitment to patient privacy). I would assume that the endoscopic appearance isn't diagnostic, and you'd need tissue confirmation? Supposedly IPSID can respond to antibiotic therapy directed at Campylobacter, though I've never been impressed with the practical results of antibiotic therapy for MALT lymphomas, whatever the case series claim. Anyhow, glad to see you back, even if you are just popping in to vote with your Armenian countrymen... :P You should start editing again. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandal watch

Mastcell, per this upcoming event:

Hallmark Hall of Fame TV Movie about Tourette Syndrome

True Story Based on Brad Cohen’s Life to Air on CBS, Sunday, December 7, 2008[27][28]

I'm already seeing a wee bit of driveby tic-related vandalism at Brad Cohen, and I expect more may happen at Tourette syndrome and coprolalia when the show airs. Will you be able to watchlist those articles until after the program? (Brad is an extraordinary fellow in case you want to watch the program; no advance news on whether the story will stay accurate, but they usually don't. Most TS shows opt for senationalism, but Brad's tics are so sensational anyway, it would be hard to exaggerate them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah... a date which will live in infamy. Unintentional coincidence, I'm sure, but if I can tear myself away from the WWII documentaries which will doubtless be showing on PBS on that date, I'll give it a watch. I'll wathclist them, but probably won't be too active the next few days, so you may want to ask another admin for backup. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual panic

And no, its not about how gays panic when they see bigots with torches. Please take a look at this very odd article Homosexual panic and see what you think. I'm thinking if I could see the papers cited and determine no reference to Kemph or Homosexual panic, I'd just speedy it as a hoax. As I cannot see the sources, I'm thinking I'll pester you, since you're a highly paid biostitute. The same goes for any page watchers here, even if they are /not/ highly paid biostitutes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a real term, or at least one I've heard before, most recently in connection with the murder of Matthew Shepherd. There are a handful of references to the term on PubMed - they're all old (nothing significant since the late 1980's), but legit. Not sure whether it warrants a separate article, but note we also have an article on the "gay panic defense", which cites a few more references. These should probably be merged. MastCell ^Talk 07:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! When do you plan to do that, exactly? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on my to-do list, but to be honest there are a few dozen higher priorities and I'm trying to cut back on Wikipedia in general, so I'm not sure when I'll get to it. MastCell ^Talk 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one of your lovely page-watchers will do it. Back when I was highly active, people would ask me to do something and often the task was done by someone else before I even saw the note myself. (hoping) Merges are just not my strong suit right now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

KiK back

As User:ArableLand - same naming pattern, user page style, target pagesJQ (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Now editing Full-reserve banking definitely KiK.JQ (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thibbledorf Pwent

Hello.

Could you please restore the edit history of Thibbledorf Pwent for me? If you like, you can redirect it to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Testosterone replacement therapy/TRT

Hi MastCell, found you on Talk:Anabolic steroid page and see all your edits/research there....you seem to be an appropriate person to throw an article request by - please see Talk:Hormone replacement therapy. Er, I think that's wherre I put it, maybe on a subpage, if so I'll be back and fix thatSkookum1 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry my mistake, I didn't realize that was a subsection on Testosterone. I must have searched only for Hormone replacement therapy when I tried to look it up the other night, and was surprised to see only a transgendering-related item there.Skookum1 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your attention desired

This could use an expert's eye, or whatever you qualify as: Collateral Meridian Therapy.

As far as I can tell, that is a legitimate journal of a legitimate physicians' association, but something doesn't quite seem right.--Tznkai (talk)05:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Anesthesia & Analgesia is a reasonable if not exactly prominent journal. The reason it doesn't smell quite right is that the reference is actually a letter to the editor reporting a single case without much supporting data. It's the definition of anecdotal evidence, with all of the limitations implied by that term. Referring to it as a "study", as our Wikipedia article does, is misleading.

The second reference from the article points to a meeting abstract. ASA is a reputable organization, but an abstract is an abstract. Having an abstract accepted at a national meeting ranges from not-terribly-hard to automatic - it's very different from an actual peer-reviewed publication, and the level of "vetting" is much lower since you need not provide a great deal of supporting data or answer any pesky follow-up questions about your data from reviewers. In an ideal world, the abstracts serve as "advance notice" of findings which will soon be published in the peer-reviewed literature once the kinks are worked out. In some cases, meeting abstracts are dumping grounds for problematic or deeply flawed research that will never see the light of day, but which needs to go on someone's CV. Not that I'm speaking from experience. :) Hope that's helpful. MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin

My petition for a formal warning seems to be stuck (nobody answered). Can you do the honors yourself as an uninvolved admin, or point me to an admin that is bored enough to read the evidence I gave and tell me "Yes, it looks right, I'll do the warning right now" or "No, I won't, because of problems X and Y"? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

JtP RFC

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_Licesning Mattnad (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)