User talk:MastCell/Archive 20

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 15

←

Archive 18

→

Your efforts regarding Obama editors

I would like to thank you for your attempt to "officiate" the seemingly-endless "brawling" that haunts the articles associated with Barack Obama. It's an ugly mess, but I appreciate your efforts to pick through the carcass to get to the meat of the problem. I would like to see administrators take a more active role on such popular articles, because I believe that much of the disruption would be avoided; however, I concede that it may expose admins to silly accusations of bias themselves.

I note your pleas for support from other administrators, so I thought I'd pass along the name of Josiah Rowe as a possible source of assistance. He has previous experience with some of the Obama BLP editors, but he retreated from the "arena" somewhat after being on the receiving end of some rather unpleasant accusations from Andyvphil. Despite being the only administrator to have ever blocked me, I have enormous respect for his opinions and his treatment of editors.

I shall be taking a short wikibreak (at least until Monday), but I'll still be picking up messages on my talk page.-- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Thankyou for your note. The page orgone has been under sustained edit attack from a group of editors who wish to insert into the lede an inadequately sourced POV that "orgone is considered pseudoscience" and to remove references that place the subject within a science-historical context. Requests and discussions on the talk page, including advice from other editors, has been of no avail. I request that the history be overlooked and that the dispute be resolved. I presently consider these persistent changes co-ordinated vandalism. Redheylin (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, but rather a content dispute. Please take a look at WP:VANDAL, particularly "what vandalism is not." I'd like to see the dispute resolved, but for that to happen the edit-warring needs to stop and you'll need to approach this as a content dispute rather than you vs. a vandal. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka and Jagz

Please see the discussion on Elonka's talk page. 131.111.1.66 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ionic Foot Bath

Hello MastCell. I will try to make better edits in the future. I am very new to updating Wikipedia. With regards to the ionic foot bath article, there were web link references that were no longer valid (they went to placeholder web sites). There was also one link which no longer went to a valid page at all and I was able to fix that one by finding the right link. I also added one extra link which I thought would be informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.168.236 (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment.

I've left a comment on the discussion for placing Barack Obama under article probation, and I'd appreciate a specific response. Shem^(talk) 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am effectively banned

Hi,

Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link

For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section.

Thanks ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

re Obama and Andyvphil

Hi MastCell, just wanted to let you know that I replied on my talkpage (at length, sorry...) on the issues of Andyvphil and the Obama articles. Avruch^T * ^ER 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Butting in because I have your page watchlisted. I haven't had time to weigh in at AN/I because a series of real life events combined to a perfect storm in my life, but your comments have been spot on. FWIW, my interaction with the Obama article has been through the three Featured article reviews, I am not an Obama supporter, and I support your statements about and block of Andyvphil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is now an attempt to form a consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil#Updated Suggestions by Ncmv and Scarian. I perceive that you have more experience with article bans than some other editors. I wonder if you have any advice on where to go from here. A process of editor-by-editor sanction voting may remind some people of WP:CSN, so I wish there were a more diplomatic way of approaching this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Block review

MastCell, I am uncomfortable with the indefinite block of Jagz (talk · contribs). I agree that there have been some problems with his behavior, but it seems excessive to go from two 24-hour blocks in March and May, to an indefinite block at this time, especially when Jagz had voluntarily agreed to avoid editing certain articles. I am also not seeing the "vandalism" that you are accusing him of. Would you please reconsider? --El on ka 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching that page and Jagz's behavior for awhile, and my feeling is that the two blocks don't reflect the magnitude of the problem he creates through his disruptiveness and tendentiousness. He did agree/submit to leaving race and intelligence, where he was most disruptive, but the idea was that he would focus elsewhere on the encyclopedia and make positive contributions. Instead, he's just continued to snipe at the people he dislikes, albeit in user talkspace now.

As to vandalism, he placed an image of the Cheshire cat on Mathsci's userpage (not to mention a handful of other places around the encyclopedia) to celebrate Mathsci's decision to leave Wikipedia. Jagz knows the difference between userpages and usertalk space, and if it was a "mistake" to put it on Mathsci's userpage, he made no effort to correct it. Leaving gloating notes about a user who's left is tacky under any circumstances; when you edit their userpage to mock them, it's vandalism. Yes, I realize Mathsci used the image first. He shouldn't have done that. If I'd been aware of it back in May I might have told him it was inappropriate. But that happened a month ago. To resurrect it now as a means of taunting Mathsci on his departure, and to vandalize his userpage in doing so, is sort of the final straw as far as I'm concerned. It's convinced me that we can expect nothing from Jagz except this sort of disruptiveness from here on.

The idea of the topic ban was that he would move on to edit constructively in other areas, not that he would pursue the same tendentious grudges in slightly different venues. I feel that an indefinite block in this case is preventing further disruption of the encyclopedia by Jagz, and I'm not inclined to unblock him barring a more serious commitment on his part to be constructive, ideally combined with someone willing to mentor and/or monitor him, which I'm not at this point. That said, if there's a strong feeling in the community that this block is excessive, then I'll of course consent to whatever is decided. Perhaps posting it for review and feedback on WP:AN/I is the logical next step. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention he also made this taunt at the ANI. I can pull up more if needed.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That image is from a few days ago. I am not arguing that Jagz was disruptive in the past. Neither am I saying that adding the Cheshire Cat image to Mathsci's userpage was wise. But I do argue that his addition was so bad that it could be called "vandalism". I know vandalism when I see it, and that pic wasn't it, especially since Mathsci had used it first.

If Jagz had done something blatantly disruptive to an article, I might support a block. But instead, it seems that people were just watching him like a hawk and waiting for him to trip over his shadow, for an excuse to block him. The "cat" image, despite the fact that people are calling it vandalism, simply was not sufficient provocation for an indefinite block. A warning, sure. A brief block, perhaps. Indefinite block, no. --El on ka 21:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are dealing with a case of polite trolling. Good block. Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. Elonka, I think we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree about this particular case. I've gone ahead and posted it to WP:AN/I for wider feedback; if there's a strong feeling that he should be unblocked, then I'll of course abide by it, though I'd like to see some commitment from Jagz to contribute positively as well as some proactive behavioral guidelines and restrictions should he be unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is well described as 'polite trolling.' And yes, I may be biased. Brusegadi (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, Jagz has agreed to further distance himself from the situation. I would also commit to monitoring his edits and working with him. Would this be sufficient assurance for you, to consider lifting the block?[1] Thanks, --El on ka 23:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the condition of the unblock should be that Elonka is mentoring Jagz. If there is a reversion to past problematic behavior, or if Elonka terminates the mentorship prior to successful completion, then Jagz can be reblocked as a preventative measure. Unblocking should be granted liberally, in my opinion, because if it is a mistake, the user will soon provide convincing evidence of the need to reblock. Jehochman ^Talk 01:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check

Would you please review Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Resolution and let me know if that seems reasonable? Vassyana (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Yes, I think your proposals are reasonable, though it looks like the usual circular discussion took over, as always. I think Martin and ScienceApologist both have good things to offer Wikipedia, but instead they expend a ridiculous amount of energy picking fights with each other. Anything that discourages that, I support. I've grown very pessimistic about the situation, though. MastCell ^Talk 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

Would you consider semi-protecting Water_fuel_cell? Every few days, an anon editor comes along and makes an edit like this, so it would be great if anon editing was disabled, at least for a little while. Yilloslime (t) 21:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's try 2 weeks. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

awesome. thanks. Yilloslime (t) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz

As you know, I never asked you to indef. block Jagz. Nor did I object. So far it seems to me that most people support your indef. block, the main objection being Elonka. I do not know if Elonka's sole voice is enough to make you change your mind.

I am not asking you to change your mind, but I want you to know that if you did, I would not object 9as long as Jagz is banned from race-related articles).

However, if you are considering Elonka's request to reverse your block I do respectfully have one request. At AN/I I and two other editors have asked Elonka to provide evidence for charges she has leveled at myself, Alun, and Samdrake. So far she has ignored our repeated requests. The most recent requests are close to the bottom of the AN/I thread:

Please could Elonka provide diffs to back her analysis? Looking for example at my reasonable and extremely civil question [2] about a sentence inserted by Jagz on biomedicine, his response was evasive and unhelpful. Apart from the opinion piece cited from the Guardian which did not mention biomedicine, Jagz was unable to support his claims. In the subsequent interchange he labelled Slrubenstein an "asshole". In normal circumstances, and this is certainly true of almost all my own edits to mainspace articles, accurate and relevant citations have to be supplied when adding content to main space articles, particularly when it is repeatedly disputed. Are the rules different for Jagz? [3]Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Above (22:03, 14 June 2008) I asked Elonka to provide us with evidence of just one instance where Jagz made a policy-compliant edit to the the article and as a consequence of that was then jumped on by other editors who accused him of being a troll and vandal. Although she has edited this thread since then, she has not responsed to my request. I am assuming she missed it - otherwise, why would an editor acting in good faith make an accusation against me or others and not provide evidence when asked? - so since she missed my request I am asking again, please provide evidence of one instance. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to reiterate my question to Elonka: this is the third time (first here and second here) that I have asked for someone to supply diffs to substantiate Jagz' accusations, or that they be dropped as unsubstantiated. Many other editors have asked the same and have provided diffs to show that the charges were unfounded (that it was in fact Jagz who was being disruptive), but User:Elonka keeps bringing up the same issues over and over again without substantiating them. I would like to ask, for the last time, that she either substantiate her charges or drop them as unfounded. It is time this wiki-drama ended. As an admin, she should know better than to do this.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully request that you wait for Elonka to respond to these requests before reversing your decision. I think whatever specific evidence she provides in response to these requests - or lack of evidence - should be considered in any decision. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, MastCell, the above comments were not posted on your talkpage by those editors, but were instead copy/pasted by Slrubenstein from the ANI thread. As for Slrubenstein's question, I can point to many edits by Jagz on the article that appear to be perfectly constructive edits. He was actively editing, providing sources, reorganizing sections, and everything else that an active good faith editor does.[4][5][6] These aren't the actions of a troll. There may have been subtler issues with WP:OWN on his part or someone else's part, or there may have been disagreements about POV or neutrality issues, but that's still not trolling, and neither is it vandalism.

Rather than getting dragged too much into the "who said what to whom and when" debate though, I'd like to focus on Jagz's current status, meaning his indef block. He has voluntarily agreed to avoid editing in the race-related topic areas, he has agreed to further withdraw from the situation and disengage from the related editors, and I have volunteered to keep an eye on his future activities.[7] At the ANI thread, Dreadstar and Rlevse both seem amenable to unblocking, as long as there is supervision involved. MastCell, is this sufficient for you, to agree to unblock Jagz (or allow me to do it)? Or would you like further assurances? Thanks, --El on ka 23:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you can't have it both ways. you cannot make accusations against me or other editors and then say that you do not want to get dragged into a debate about who said what to whom. Moreover, your comment above shows that you misunderstand the situation that led to Jagz being blocked (which concerns me if you genuinely want tomentor him). You provide three constructive edits Jagz made to the article. But you will also note that neither I, Alun, Ramdrake, nor anyone else accused Jagz of vandalism or of being a troll when he made these edits. In other words, these edit difs are not evidence supporting your claim that - in your words - "However, turn it around and look at it from a different perspective. How would you feel if you tried to edit an article, and a team of editors jumped on your edits, accused you (unjustly in your mind) of trolling and vandalism, and then complained so persuasively to administrators, that you were blocked for it?" I assume the team of editors you are refering to includes Alun, Ramdrake and myself. I assure you that when Jagz tried to edit the article, and his edits were constructive, like the ones you provide above, none of us jumped on him accusing him of trolling and vandalism. Never. I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim and so far you have not.

I accused Jagz of trolling for his trollish behavior, not for the edits you cite above. As a matter of fact, I am fairly confident I never reverted or criticized those edits. So again, I have to ask you, do you have any evidence to support your claim? If you do not have evidence to support your claim, and do not understand why Jagz was such a disruptive presense at Race and Intelligence, I fail to see how you can mentor him. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, here is an example of the kind of language that you have been using with Jagz. Is it your opinion that this is appropriate behavior for an administrator? Because I feel that it is appalling. Even when dealing with a blatant vandal, this kind of language is unacceptable.[8][9] To be honest, the more I dig, the more I feel that Jagz acted with remarkable restraint, and that perhaps the wrong person was banned from the article. I haven't seen anything from Jagz that comes close to matching the level of incivility that was directed at him. --El on ka 08:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka I don't know how far you've looked back in the talk archives. I have a lot of faith in MastCell's judgement, particularly since, unlike you, he has a lot of experience of fringe science issues, the main issue with this unavoidably problematic article. What you say implies that MastCell has missed something which only you have observed. Several other administrators have described Jagz as a "polite troll". That has a very precise meaning. User:Fourdee and User:MoritzB were also "polite trolls" but their contributions were against consensus and they both had a definite POV to push. User:Fourdee made some very extreme statements about Jewish historians, which, when reported on WP:AN/I, resulted in an immediate permaban by Jimbo himself. He was a "polite troll": he never attacked any other editors. At no point in your discussion has the issue of content or fringe science been addressed (Rushton, Lynn, Jensen) which lie at the heart of the problem. You seem only to have made a superficial analysis based on language and tone. If we ignore language and semantic quibbles (such as your own gripes about the words troll or vandal), it can be seen that Jagz was the only active editor on the page to refuse mediation on two occasions. On the second occasion he disappeared briefly, giving the false impression to the mediating administrator that he had abandoned editing the article, only to reappear when it seemed that no mediation was necessary. It is this kind of behaviour which is disruptive. I am not a frequent contributor to the R&I page and in fact it is not on my watch list. (I am not confident that it can easily be improved, although amazingly it is much, much better than what was there before Christmas.) On the other hand Slrubenstein was quite instrumental in leading the drive for scholarly references and establishing a neutral and scholarly point of view. I think it would be quite gracious and generous of you if you were to recognize his extremely helpful contributions rather than tarnishing his considerable reputation as a WP editor and administrator on such a slight pretext. Cheers,Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

← I think that in the long run, the best solution here is for everyone to step back. I'm OK with an unblock of Jagz, provided he's in a clear mentorship relationship with Elonka and provided that he avoid race-related topics and the editors with whom he's had conflict (and that they make an effort to avoid him). Jagz has not made clear that he even wants to continue to edit, though if he does I think those strictures are reasonable. Beyond that, I think we're just arguing to no effective purpose. My view of the situation is that Jagz was provocative in a relatively polite and civil manner, as Mathsci suggests, and that Slrubinstein (for example) took the bait to an unfortunate extent. The difference between the two is that Slrubinstein has a long history as a productive editor and admin across a wide range of topics, while Jagz had devolved into a single-purpose agenda account. Elonka's viewpoint is different than mine; I respect it. I think since we're all more or less in agreement about how to handle this, we should focus on that common ground. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MastCell, I agree with your analysis and suggestions. Thanks also for keeping an open mind. I had (and have!) considerable respect for you as an administrator, even though we had a disagreement on this one particular block. I am glad that we were able to work things out in a civil manner, and I look forward to working with you in the future. :) --El on ka 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. Jagz has already broken his topic ban on User:Zero g's talk page.[10] I have added a comment on WP:AN/I asking Elonka to act a.s.a.p. The issue is evidently not resolved yet. Cheers,Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the edit, and don't see a problem. Jagz was suggesting a possible course of action, to another editor who he has worked with in the past. Jagz's ban is to avoid the articles and their talkpages, as well as to avoid interacting with his opponents. Zero g was not one of his opponents. If Jagz wants to engage in a non-controversial conversation with other editors who welcome his comments, then I don't see a problem with that. --El on ka 15:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd like to see Jagz take the topic ban a bit more seriously. Suggesting courses of action to friendly editors is really skirting the spirit of the topic ban. I'd rather see evidence that Jagz actually gets it, instead of just modifying his behavior slightly to meet the letter of each new restriction imposed upon him. But it's early and I think a word to the wise should be sufficient here. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He is now making provocative comments on WP:AN/I in direct response to me, completely against the terms of the topic ban. He is not taking the ban seriously, no matter what Elonka writes. Again he is exploring the limits of his ban, which include not directly engaging with people whom he has explicitly identified as his opponents and with whom he has been told not to engage. Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, MastCell. Jagz has now added more trolling remarks on WP:AN/I immediately after my comments. It appears that Elonka has made several serious errors of judgement. (The other mentor for example is not even an administrator.) Your initial assessment of Jagz's behaviour seems to have been quite correct. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Katanada

thanks! Katanada (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unproven cancer therapy

Just wanted to make sure you knew about the merge proposal at Unproven cancer therapy, since it seemed to me a few months ago that you had a particular vision for that article. No need to do anything unless there's something you're unhappy with in the current process -- just didn't want you to feel left out. ;-) (I'm not watching your talk page, and I don't need a reply.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I had a vision for it when I was new here and didn't understand WP:NOR. Thanks for the heads-up; I think the merge sounds fine. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember me?

Hey masters remember me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.55.170 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you'll have to give me a hint, as I've run across quite a few IP addresses in my day... MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Task force recruitment

Hi, I'm commenting here because I worked with you on emergency contraception and I'm remembering that you've worked on Depo-Provera. I've proposed a task force to provide a discussion place for articles on methods of birth control, and was hoping you would be interested in joining. If you're interested, please add your name to the proposal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah... I think I still have PTSD from that experience. :) In all seriousness, I'd be happy to help. It's outside my direct area of training, but I have some background and access to a good range of full-text references. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on User:Esimal

As the editor who blocked this user (you may remember him): would you be willing to file an RFC with me on him? It is my opinion that this editor continues to engage in blatant personal attacks, edit warring, and pro-Neopagan POV pushing (these will all be clear from recent contribs). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I do remember him - vaguely - and I can take a look at his contribs. A brief glance tends to support your opinion of them. I don't think I can legitimately co-file or certify an RfC, because I haven't been involved in disputes nor in trying to resolve any disputes with him, but I'd be happy to look at and comment at an RfC if one is filed. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Filed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, never seen a candidate RfC work that quickly... MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought there was a darned good chance that might happen, and I filed it anyway, which makes me feel kind of bad (not to mention that half of the rudeness was in fact goading to get such a response). However, what I'm not sure is how permanent this retirement will be (especially given the history of IP usage), so I will leave it up. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ellagic acid

After seeing the state of ellagic acid earlier today, I started doing a bit of cleanup, then decided that it really needed work so I've been looking up some of the literature about it. And now I see that you've gone ahead and done the work for me. Thanks - it's a great improvement. (But I may add a little bit to it tomorrow.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was just going through the FDA's list of "Fake Cancer Cures" and made a bet with a coworker that at least 50% of them would have overly promotional, poorly referenced entries on Wikipedia (call it informed cynicism). Ellagic acid happened to be the first one I looked at. There is actually a small but definite body of work on the substance's antioxidant and antiproliferative properties in vitro, but of course while it's hardly been tested in humans (and the results there have hardly been dramatic), it's being marketed quite aggressively. Anyhow, feel free to add or edit; I just felt the need to do something. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the same way I came to look at the article - having seen a news article about the FDA's recent action. Looking into the scientific literature, I found quite a bit of research which I find quite interesting, but as you say - all in vitro. I've also found a nice review article which I'll use to add a bit more to the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No changes in user page, yet?

Well, that's not what I'm writing for here. I wanted to congratulate you on Breslow's depth article, which I found particularly nice.

By the way, I don't know if you misunderstood me; I have corrected all the problems with your user page, and lies waiting for you to embrace it. Simply, put you just have to copy+paste it.

Also, one of the articles I'd been editing Polyclonal B cell response has been promoted to the GA status. Would you be able to find time to go through it and let me know what changes would be required for it to get promoted to A-class, and further?

Thanks in advance.

Keep up the good work!

—KetanPanchal^taLK 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I think Breslow's depth was one of the first things I worked on when I started here. I'll take a look at polyclonal B cell response. I've been a bit preoccupied but I must have missed that you'd already fixed up the userpage for me. Many thanks - I went ahead and cut-and-pasted it from your draft in your userspace. Would you like me to delete the draft from your userspace, or do you want to hang onto it? Anyhow, thanks for working on it. I'm planning to redo the userpage entirely to circumvent the problem, but it's on the back burner and I greatly appreciate your work in fixing it up. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Actually, I'd like to keep the draft—something that I worked on, but am not sure if it'd be appropriate to have a copy of some one else's user page. I'll proceed according to your advice. If you tell me I'll tag it for speedy deletion. As such I don't have any experience of speedy deletion, etc (most of my edits on Wikipedia have been "creative" rather than "destructive" ;) ). Take care. —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. The only suggestions I'd make would be to put <nowiki> tags around the categories - otherwise your draft page will be automatically placed in the user categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who like Arrested Development. Thanks again for your help. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that. —KetanPanchal^taLK 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Request refactoring

Hello MastCell,
I request that you refactor your recent accusatory comment. I most definitely did not claim "evidence of some sort of bigotry." towards Avruch and the only issue I raised was that of extending too much good faith. I don't know why you misread my comment, but your response seems way over the top which I'm sure that when you re-read my comment, you will understand why I was surprised to see this attack on something I had not said or suggested.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease

Any interest? Taken over by fringe theories. I know the territory somewhat but don't have a lot of time to weigh in ... I delisted it GA yesterday because there's a lot happening in the article. See

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh Good Lord... I don't know if I have the necessary patience to deal with people obsessed with painting the IDSA as a nefarious organization of conspirators. In fact, at a glance, I can see that the same editors (presumably) have severely WP:COATRACKed our article on Infectious Diseases Society of America, to the point that it essentially rehashes the Lyme disease stuff ([11], now removed by me). This is going to require some work. It does look at a glance like there is one agenda account behind most of the problems, so perhaps this is a solvable problem. Let me look at it on Monday or so. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to dump it on you, but I just don't have time lately ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem; it's an important article, and I didn't mean to sound frustrated with you, just with the recurring issue of agenda-driven takeovers of important articles. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Home page of CNN.com: [12] Should generate a lot of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn, you're doing one fine job over there. I can't help a lot because I have none of the sources. Maybe someone will e-mail me some PDFs of the key sources. Following up on the "rogue" comment on my talk page, yes, I can see how those can come in handy in these situations. Ya know, that's why I always said abusive admins damage the Project in the long term more than trolls and vandals. The reason their hands are tied now is that they aimed their tools at too many innocent victims and productive contributors (like Tim Vickers and me); had they not done that, they still might be able to be "rogue-ishly" effective with the true trolls and vandals. Now we're stuck with less effective means of dealing with the trolls and POV-pushers, because of past admin abuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

G33 violating his unblock condition

Giovanni33 was unblocked under the restriction that he only be allowed to edit pages relating to the arbcomb case. However, he has been editing numerous other pages, per [[13]]. Jtrainor (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My original block was for 72 hours, and so the understanding was that if unblocked he wouldn't edit elsewhere for the duration of those 72 hours. I think he complied, glancing at his contribs. The 72-hour block would have expired by now anyway, so he's not violating the terms of the early unblock at this point. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 22 June 2008

Partiality

MastCell clearly took sides from the very beginning at Fringe Theories Noticeboard: "I'm sympathetic to you on the content issue, and Redheylin is clearly out of line there" and he continued with his personal criticisms of Reich, which were not up for discussion. But he neglected to intervene. His actions were in support of disruptive editing of a page he personally did not like. This IS a complaint. Redheylin (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what this complaint is meant to achieve. Redheylin quotes your comments out of context then strawmans and misrepresents your arguments. This entire comment is an ad hominem personal attack questioning you for the audacity of placing a 24 hour block on him for being in the neighborhood of 8RR. Since I've met him, he has assumed bad faith in his every dispute. :(

Since our dispute (which ended when he tossed up a db-spam template and ran off), I've been following his edits. I see him struggling and want to help him before it's too late, but I really don't know how. –Gunslinger47 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

@Redheylin: Partiality is interesting, since I blocked both you and your partner-in-edit-warring for the same amount of time. I was actually quite lenient with you, given the magnitude of edit-warring, incivility, and disruption on your part. If you keep edit-warring and being disruptive, you can expect more blocks, whether from me or from another admin. If you'd like to lodge a more formal complaint, then you can do so at any number of venues, including WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think we should seek mediation first - do you not think that the history and contributions of the editors concerned should be evaluated? It looks to me like disruption is the game and causing a block is a win for disruption, so you have decided that disruption will win. You are not going to find much to back your accusations of "edit-warring, incivility, and disruption" on my part. You are going to find another editor who has a history of single-issue destructive editing on this particular page and who had edit-warred with two other contributors immediately before, who refused to use the talk-page, who refused all compromises, who removed references, who contends that his POV is so obviously true that it requires no references, that "ignore all rules" shall rule.... and you will find me making a major contribution to early 20thC biology and occasionally running up against folk who do not want to discuss anything but impose their fanatical ideology. If you support this you are not supporting wiki in my view, so let's have a bit of welcome and civility shall we? Make me understand. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with some things we can agree upon.

An edit war is simply, and without prejudice, users repeatedly revert each other's edits.
Edit wars are disruptive. WP:3RR is in place simply, and without prejudice, to stop this sort of disruption.
Someone else being more disruptive than an editor does not excuse his or her own disruptive behavior.

Do you believe I'm mistaken on any of these points? –Gunslinger47 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on Joseph Stalin article

User Seektrue has engaged me in an edit war over an image of Joseph Stalin's father, which he argues is a fake. He has repeatedly removed the image from the article, and I have had to keep putting it back. The photograph in question is a genuine portrait of Stalin's father; it was taken from a recently-published and critically-acclaimed biography of Joseph Stalin by a well-respected historian (Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore). Mr Montefiore describes the photo as "the official image" of Vissarion Jughashvili. We have discussed this matter on the talk page; Seektrue argues that Stalin "refused to confirm this was his father". While there is indeed speculation that Vissarion was not Stalin's true biological father, it does not change the fact that the photograph is a genuine image of him. In any case, Vissarion was Stalin's legal father and his image should be included in this article.Kurzon (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease 2

I fully and totally support your edits there--see my talk page for some interesting discussion. DGG (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, you probably saw above that SandyGeorgia asked me to look at the article as it's devolved rapidly from GA status. There are fundamental issues of WP:WEIGHT that need to be addressed. The article is written as if it's an equal split in prominence between the "mainstream medical" viewpoint (as elucidated in, say, the New England Journal of Medicine PMID 17914043) and ILADS. I'd never suggest that there is no controversy, but there is clearly a majoritarian view exemplified by the Infectious Disease Society of America, among others, and a fringe/minoritarian view which is notable but which is given way too much weight and prominence, as is often the case on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ack, my time is so limited lately ... I just caught up on DGG's talk page. I've spent some time looking at the history of editors who come and go at Lyme Disease, and there's a rotation of new accounts in and out of there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, per the discussions at Talk:Lyme disease, something is goofed up at WP:V, because the word "independent" appears nowhere on the policy page. I left a talk note there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the only mention I can find is at Wikipedia:Independent sources, an essay. This is a problem, particularly with respect to establishing self-published sources as reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually just cite the essay. Yes, it's an essay and not a guideline or policy, but since it codifies widely accepted best practices, I think that's a relatively minor point. Honestly, when editors respond to a request for independent sources by saying "But that's just an essay, not policy!", it's an excellent indication that they have a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is and is not. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the wording gives me a problem wrt WP:SPS. Specifically, we're working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography to use as a sample for WP:FCDW/June 23, 2008 (next Signpost Dispatch) to show how to establish reliability of a self-published source. It troubles me that some of the examples given may not be independent, leading to circular reasoning. BTW, the following week is of interest to you, written by TimVickers (feel free to edit): WP:FCDW/June 30, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff... we have something similar in WP:MEDRS, but it's mostly an internal reference for the WikiProject. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In case I get busy and forget, let me know if Lyme stabilizes, and I'll do a MoS runthrough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started working on it. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed you in regards to this article. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

and again. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection request~

Hi MastCell!

I'm working to fix a dispute that happened between an admin and the creator of an article. Apparently, the creator was blocked by the admin after the creator offended the admin, thus the creator, LDCortez, was unable to defend the article properly. I personally noticed the "war" going on between the two and felt the need to step in. I need your help to overturn the deletion, reinstate the article and to protect the page- please. As you were a part of this process, I feel you could potentially help. BHOrchid (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cary_Herrman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BHOrchid (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are an alternate account of, or proxy for, of a blocked user. Even if that were not the case, the article was deleted according to the proper process, so I am not about to unilaterally overturn it. I see you've found your way to WP:DRV already, which is the appropriate venue. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rife

Hi MastCell, After the weekend I will try to get some info on the talk page to see if better sources can be used. Ward20 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

wish you were right

See the section on User talk:Friday's page with a similar title. You made a similar prediction. I wish you were right but you are wrong. SundaySell (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on the edits you actually made, and the edit war over whether Howard Dean's voice "cracked" or whether he only "claimed that it cracked", the words "self-fulfilling prophecy" come to mind. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you blaming me? FridayCell7 simply modified the article to reflect the references. At first it had no references and no reliable source. FridayCell7 provided it. The POV pusher then changed it. FridayCell7 made compromises that still reflected the references. This is not edit waring on Fridaycell7's part. Then the POV pusher got a crony to ban FridayCell7.

I am disappointed at you that you are taking sides of the POV pushers. This is such an easy and clear cut case of abuse toward FridayCell7SundaySell (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the dynamic here? You've wasted a huge amount of everyone's time and energy, particularly with the Archtransit nonsense, and you expect that any time you create a new sock it should be treated with the forbearance that a constructive user would be? You made this bed, and now you're blaming everyone but yourself when forced to lay in it. If you want to start over, you really need to be on best behavior. Ask yourself if the edits you were fighting over on Howard Dean were really the most pressing improvements to the article that you could come up with. Beyond that, I think I'm wasting my breath here. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not Archtransit. Archtransit was cited as being a strong editor with thousands of edits and turning a rejected good article into a featured article, as mentioned in the RFA. I would love to claim credit for that kind of editorial ability but I am not him. SundaySell (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from below thread) MastCell, whether you are aware of it or not, you are taking the sides of the POV pushers. You accuse FridayCell7 of being disruptive but that's just the fake accusation that the POV pushers would take.

There was no edit war at Howard Dean. There was simply a statement that did not have a citation. One was added. The POV pusher got so mad that they started to dispute it. Then they got their crony to ban. It's pure and simple, the POV pushers have perfected a way to "own" articles by banning anyone they don't like.

You said one should just edit normally and they would be fine. The Howard Dean article is proof that one can edit normally and in an article with no prior conflict. All of sudden, the POV pusher doesn't like an editor so gets to ban them. The POV pusher started the scheme (by the initial ban) and now can use the excuse that anyone is a sock of the banned user to ban anyone they don't like. You seem to refuse to admit it but you won't look into the edits and just join the POV pushers chorus. This is shameful because you wanted to be on the Arbitration Committee. A fair arbitrator candidate would look at things with an open mind and not take sides with the aggressor. SundaySell (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I addressed this interesting worldview one post up from here. If it's any consolation to you, I no longer have any desire to be on the Arbitration Committee, so rest easy. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no resting easy. A desire to be on the Arbitration Committee should come with a desire to be fair. Not wanting to be on the Arbitration Committee but still being an administrator should also come with a sense of fairness. It's not fair when you side with POV pushers by making wrong accusations.

The case is simple. The edits were reasonable, not disruptive. The POV pusher wants total control so they get anyone they don't like banned using the fake reason that they manufactured. They pushed for the initial ban and now they use the excuse that anyone they don't like is a sock of a banned user. You initially said to edit and everything will be find. Look at FridayCell7 who did just that.

Even if you don't look at the big problem of the POV pushers domination and control and want to solve a small issue, then you should unban FridayCell7 since the edits are just the kind of non-controversial stuff that you and Friday said an editor should do. SundaySell (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop referring to FridayCell7 in the third person as if you are different people. That charade is unecessary. The edits in question were, obviously, controversial, and I note you've chosen not to address the issues I raised in my post above. You edited in a way which caused controversy and drew attention to the fact that you were a sock - and over a ridiculously trivial issue, which suggests that you're not particularly interested in the actual quality of the encyclopedia, but rather in trying to "prove" that you'll always be persecuted. Again, self-fulfilling prophecy. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Diablo SE30

Hello, I know that you have helped me in the past with the troublesome user User:DiabloSE30. Anyways, he has resumed his behavior on the Lamborghini Diablo page. He is deleting all of the images on the page, and putting an image of a Jots in the infobox, of which I am assuming is for glorification of the car, knowing his past behavior. He is reverting any edits when editors try to revert back, with the informative images restored. I know that there is a "zero-tolerance" policy for the guy, so I would like for this to be looked into. Karrmann (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Cannibal Corpse

I'm confused as to why I am barred from making edits to the Cannibal Corpse Wikipedia entry. While I understand this is temporary, I am confused as to why PUNKTV.CA is allowed to put a link to an interview under the External Links, while when I made the same attempt for a different website, Colfer2 undid my changes. I have since spoken with Colfer2 and I understand that he misinterpreted my motivation to adding external links, as well as that I made some mistakes on my part as to the proper procedure of adding those entries.

I'm confused as to why I'm unable to make any further edits, and more importantly, why one site providing an external link to an inteview is deemed "acceptable" while another (with a larger reputation) is not.

72.22.6.209 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)72.22.6.209

Discuss it on the article talk page and stop edit-warring. If there's consensus to add the link, it won't matter if the page is semi-protected or not. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i'm new here. i'll do that, however. i thought my changes just didnt go through or something. i had no idea of how wikipedia really worked until the last three or four days.

71.60.90.30 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)72.22.6.209

Jagz

FYI, I have reinstated the indefinite block of Jagz (talk · contribs). Please see his edit to your talk page for the reason. --B (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that did demonstrate an offensive lack of biological understanding. Mommy, where do stem cells come from? Antelan^talk 05:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly goose, he didn't say stem cells :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, true! Antelan^talk 05:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, your attention to detail is always a pleasure to behold. :) You know, his post drives home the limitations of English as a language of abuse. The available range of insulting tropes is so restricted and repetitive. Ah well, not much more needs to be said here, I guess. MastCell ^Talk 05:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're reminding me of the "Explicit language" vs "Explicit content" labeling on CDs. Explicit language, in theory, describes explicit content (copulating with parents, self-stimulating erogenous zones, etc.). However, I'd argue that the line that is drawn between the two is legit, because such explicit language is usually rather empty and generic, whereas "explicit content" is often original and quite scarring. "The Cell", anyone? Antelan^talk 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was having so much fun with the drama on my Talk Page, I missed this one. Well, I'm not shocked by what he had done.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty paltry in comparison to yours, but I try to do my part to keep Wikipedia from getting boring. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of link to compilation of literature on chronic Lyme/spirochete persistence in vivo

Mastcell, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but did you remove the link to the compilation of academic literature on chronic Lyme. This is a thoroughly researched, meticulous source. For the sake of balance - in the great spirit of Wikipedia - things like this should be allowed to remain available. If I am confused by the stream of edits and it was not you, I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foundinkualalumpur (talk • contribs) 05:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC) --Foundinkualalumpur (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I did remove the link to lymeinfo.net, as have other editors. The article already suffers from an overabundance of iffy external links. The site in question lacks editorial oversight, and its reputation for accuracy is spotty as well, having been specifically cited as a purveyor of inaccurate information about Lyme disease (PMID 15626946). I left a note detailing my concerns on the article talk page, which is probably the best place to continue this conversation. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mastcell--

Just a note-- the page on Lyme disease microbiology (persistence section) has numerous citations for articles that FIRMLY SUBSTANTIATE persistence of infection of the spirochete in mammals despite antiobitic treatment. Other spirochetes closely related to Lyme disease such as Relapsing fever (another borrelia) and Syphillis are well known in the scientific literature to persist as infections. The infamous Tuskeegee experiment on prisoners with syphilis is a case in point. Persistent infection means that chronic Lyme infection is a real diagnosis, and thus substantiates ILADS' scientific position.

By failing to include these sources regarding persistence of infection, your revert is in violation of NPOV... There is one faction of the Lyme community (scientists in the IDSA and EIS) that consists of people with a profit motive---PATENT holders for the inaccurate Lyme diagnostic test and failed Lymerix vaccine.

These IDSA affiliated scientists with conflicts of interest are currently engaged in an information war to cover their research backsides by claiming, erroneously that 1) persistent infection does not exist, and 2) that their lucrative diagnostic test is accurate. They are making large royalties on this test, which fails to diagnose the organism 85 percent of the time-- and this was also a bonus for their vaccine. The whole issue is a scam based on financial conflicts of interest. Attorney general Blumenthal has forced the IDSA to reconsider its diagnostic guidelines-- thereby casting doubt on their scientific credibility and integrity. Yet they edit Wikipedia in droves.

Please ensure that proper footnotes substantiating persistence of infection are included in this article. You may one day be diagnosed with a strange new disease, and not know why the scientific community is working against your best interests... The answer is.. as it always is... money and corruption. Unbiased reporting of current scientific facts is the only way to counteract this sort of endemic "thank you for smoking" science, and it is in our nation's (and your own) best interest. Freyfaxi (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)freyfaxi

If you honestly think that a parade of sock/meatpuppet agenda accounts spouting misinformed conspiracy theories and lecturing me on NPOV is going to change my mind, you could not be more wrong. Please stop abusing Wikipedia to fight this battle. MastCell ^Talk 00:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I've removed full protection, dropping it back down to "semi". If there are any specific administrative actions I can do to help, please let me know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The ghost of Jagz

I just noticed that anonymous IP 161.243.114.45 from Florida vandalised my user page and talk page. Could a checkuser please be run to see whether this is Jagz? (From his recent edits, Jagz seems to be based in Florida.) Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No need, it's pretty clearly Jagz, and since he's indefinitely blocked it would not be particularly useful to run a checkuser. I blocked the IP for a day; if problems continue, the block can be extended. According to WHOIS, it's registered to the City of Jacksonville, which might be an avenue to pursue if abuse from that IP continues. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I See You've Been Watching

So what am I now to make of an "RFC" which was never properly posted, selectively solicited comments, and now has an expired timer and only a single certifying signature? What is the normal process here? Does someone review these things or what? --GoRight (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hit or miss. I actually had looked at the RfC a while back after seeing it mentioned on a talk page somewhere and watchlisted it, meaning to get back to it. I just noticed the new account, and touching base with them has been my only input as far as I can remember. I have no idea why it hasn't been listed - there isn't a formal process or any one admin who goes through and checks certification etc. You could post a short note on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, not litigating the underlying issues but just asking admins to review the certification and propriety of the RfC (listing the issues you mention above). I'd rather not do it myself, because I think I've blocked you once, long ago, and probably better to get wholly uninvolved eyes on it. My 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

advice?

concerning this? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been handled in a reasonable fashion. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

If you have time. Mastcell can you take a look at the current discussion about a subject in the bates method article. I have re-added a comment of you. I would really appreciate if you would give your arguments about whether or not the 10 spam links are acceptable or not. Note they appear on every page of the link. Seeyou (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Area of Critical Environmental Concern

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi. FYI, I have requested an undelete of Area of Critical Environmental Concern which you deleted many months ago. --Una Smith (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No need for deletion review; as the banner at the top of my talk page says, I'll happily undelete anything I've deleted under WP:PROD at any editor's request. But looks like it's already taken care of. MastCell ^Talk 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You have ignored my email

You ignored the email that I sent to you at about 9:00 AM GMT, so here it is again.

"Would you please explain something to me? Why is my block expired as of 07:34 GMT (2-1/2 hours ago), but my IP address is still blocked until 11:11 GMT (more than two hours from now)?"

Kossack4Truth

--- This e-mail was sent by user "Kossack4Truth" on the English Wikipedia, to user "MastCell", as specified by the recipient's e-mail preferences. It has been automatically delivered as written, and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. If this e-mail is objectionable or you are unfamiliar with the Wikipedia EmailUser function, please read the following information.

Privacy: The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account, and you do not have to reply to this user. If you wish to reply, you can do so using your usual e-mail, or by using "e-mail this user" from the English Wikipedia website, depending upon your security requirements. The main difference is that the former may show your e-mail address, IP address, and possibly e-mail routing or other relevant information; using "e-mail this user" prevents disclosure of any information except your e-mail address.

Removal: The option to remove yourself from other user mailings is in your preferences. Go to your preferences (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences>) and un-check "Enable e-mail from other users".

Abuse: In case of abuse, please forward this e-mail and any other relevant information (including e-mail headers if available), to <info-en-o@wikimedia.org>. Please do not delete the e-mail until you have received a reply. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, you had an autoblock on your IP which didn't expire until 11:11 GMT. I did look into this after seeing your email, but by then it was past 11:11 and the autoblock (if any) had already expired, so there was no action to be taken. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwundi

Please see my latest question at ANI. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried to answer... if there's a specific technical issue you'd like addressed, you can let me know here or by email. If it's about reverting his edits as contributions from a "banned" user, then I think that would be justifiable. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Slander Me Again Like You Did On the Administrator's Notice Board, And I Will Request You Get Blocked As Well

Yes, I will. If you show bias towards me and favor the users Tvoz and Plushpuffin for being "victims of attacks," I could also have your administrator title taken away for violating the good faith policy. Act more mature.

User Kevin j has been blocked for a week. I endorse the block, but I'm terribly upset about the length of it. It should be a month. Although, he seems to have characterized you perfectly...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for SLANDER! Also I have taken your administrator title away.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--barneca (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A thousand pardons, but rightfully it would be libel. Jim62sch^dissera! 15:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

MastCell/Archive_20 (block log • ipblocklist • rangeblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • creation log • unblock)
Reason for unblocking:

Barneca is an abusive admin with a vendetta against me because my RfA nom wasn't effusive enough in his praise. I believe that attacking him represents my best chance of being unblocked. Also I suspect that barneca is a sockpuppet of Kevin j and would like this addressed immediately. I also intend to keep harping on this block at AN/I and demanding an apology for at least 4 months after the actual block expires. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MastCell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Barneca is an abusive admin with a vendetta against me because my RfA nom wasn't effusive enough in his praise. I believe that attacking him represents my best chance of being unblocked. Also I suspect that barneca is a sockpuppet of Kevin j and would like this addressed immediately. I also intend to keep harping on this block at AN/I and demanding an apology for at least 4 months after the actual block expires. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After gathering evidence offline with my secret cohort, throwing out anything that might support your contributions and only keeping those things that might prove our point, it has been determined that you are in fact a disruptive user. Evidence not available on request. See IRC logs. — Keeper ǀ 76 18:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And by the way, I just looked at the real blocklog, to make sure that Barneca was joking. You have a f-ing hilarious blocklog. Keeper ǀ 76 19:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who quotes Airplane! in a block log should definitely be indef blocked.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you have abused your privileges by unblocking yourself, I have blocked you, your family, and everyone you know for a period of 1 year. Please apply in person to Jimbo for an unblock at that time. Later tonite I'll be coming by your house to spork your lawn. Friday (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? "...to make sure that Barneca was joking..."??? I'm not an idiot. And implying that I am an idiot is a PERSONAL ATTACK. I demand Keeper76 be blocked and his aministrator title be revoked! --barneca (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DO IT! For the love of god, someone stop me from editing this place! Please do it!!!!! Keeper ǀ 76 19:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't have an "aministrator title", so good luck revoking it. Keeper ǀ 76 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My secret plan is coming to fruition. Admins blocking other admins. Especially Keeper76 who pays editors to write DYK articles for him for $2.99 an article. He should be blocked for paying less than the minimum wage. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, he PAYS? Where is my check? Keeper76, I demand that you be blocked immediately for non-payment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only does he not pay minimum wage, he doesn't send the checks out? This cheap SOB should be keelhauled. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, a few months ago, before I realized what a bad idea it was, I used to keep a list of accounts where I thought the person should have been indef blocked, but they got only a 1- or 2-day block. Out of a dozen or so accounts on the list, every single one ended up eventually getting an indef block -- with the sole exception being kevin j. Take what you will from that...

(And yes, I realize what a horrible violation of Wikipedia policy it is to maintain such a list, and that's why I voluntarily had it deleted once I understood that.) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be blocked for not realizing that an Excel spreadsheet could do the same thing for you, and no one would know. But then you need to email it to all of us, so that we may approve the list. OK? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that what they call a cabal? I'm a brand new user too and I want to join a cabal because it's a cool sounding word. It must be from that "More cabal" skit. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you belong to the annoying socks of Ray Ray cabal? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

← I am just a new user here, but it seems very unfair to me that MastCell was blocked. He seems like an excellent editor and administrator with many fine personal qualities, including striking good looks and kindness to animals. I also think you have violated several subsections and clauses of WP:BLOCK (although I have just started contributing, I have read Wikipedia anonymously for many years, so accusing me of being a WP:SOCK would violate WP:AGF). I hope you will reconsider your abusive block of MastCell before I have to open a WP:RFC/U or take it straight to WP:AN/I or WP:ARBCOM. Now I am off to read more about this wonderful site, because as I already mentioned, I am a brand-new user. Immature Basophil (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a oldish-bee, Basophil, and I think the administrators are all having a little bit of Friday fun. But just in case I'm wrong I'm going to block you too for talking to administrators without permission. Wikidemo (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I walk into a mis-timed April fool's joke? Jim62sch^dissera! 15:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You had me going there. Good to see you've not lost your sense of humor. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can honestly say I no longer have any idea what's going on here. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This diff will be quite useful in the future!!!! As a matter of fact, it belongs on your famous quote page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)