User talk:MastCell

Archives

(Date ranges are approximate)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process

Hi MastCell. I responded a bit impulsively today in the heat of the moment in the thread that alleges misrepresentation of sources. I sort of wish now that I'd held off, since I really appreciate your suggestion that we get back to the process we started. I think that's a good suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But since you're here, I want to ask you something. Our content on the purported health benefits of Transcendental Meditation is heavily influenced by editors affiliated with the TM movement. Do you think that raises questions about bias (either conscious or unconscious) in our coverage? I think the best practice (one that is recommended, but not demanded, by WP:COI) would be for editors with close connections to the movement to participate in talkpage discussion, but for independent, unaffiliated editors to manage the actual editing of article content.

I'm not a big fan of analogies, but let's say that our coverage of an antihypertensive drug from Merck were dominated by a small group of single-purpose accounts closely affiliated with Merck. That situation would rightly raise concerns about our ability to present accurate and unbiased medical information. I see a similar problem on the TM articles, at least as far as they intersect with medical claims. Do you?

Finally, I'm sort of disappointed in the lack of restraint shown by TM-affiliated editors. Frankly, there are a number of Wikipedia articles, both medical and biographical, which I avoid because I want to manage any potential conflicts of interest on my part. These are areas where I believe I could undoubtedly improve our coverage, but I recognize that my connections (which are not financial, but rather personal or professional) would potentially bias me. So I don't edit those articles, as a simple but healthy form of self-restraint. I sort of wish that some level of introspection would take place here so that people wouldn't need to beat the drum confrontationally about it. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative action

From editors to admins, everyone's actions on wikipedia are subject to scrutiny. When you're asked to provide diffs and justification and instead you react defensively, that's an indicator you're too close to the subject or the editors to act neutrally. I think it'd be best going forward if you avoid administrative action in political articles. D.Creish (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing and adminning in controversial areas for more than a decade now, so I'm not exactly a stranger to scrutiny. I feel comfortable with where I've drawn the line between the two roles. I think I've provided adequate justification for the indefinite block of Hidden Tempo (I'm assuming that's the locus of your complaint), although you're of course free to disagree. Thank you for the feedback, though. MastCell ^Talk 01:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a policy discussion you accused another admin of supporting white supremacists. That's not a "comfortable" or neutral position. I believe you believe you're acting fairly but when others (including admins) say they think you aren't it's important to pay attention. Dismissing every criticism as unmerited or disingenuous can only go so far. I strongly encourage you to reexamine your actions and involvement in politics. D.Creish (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding white supremacists, that's not exactly what happened, as I think you know. The full discussion in question is here, and involved a proposal to alter the application of WP:NPOV to downplay reliable sources because they were perceived as inherently "biased" against white supremacists. The proposal was roundly rejected (as of this writing), and I'm not particularly interested in re-litigating it, but suffice to say that I'm comfortable with my input there. As for feedback, I have been listening and paying attention, but thank you for your concern. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the related discussion at AN. I have included some slight criticism of your actions, but I want to be clear that it is only very slight criticism. The issue was that it took me a long time to figure out what the block was actually for; every time someone asked for a justification, it seemed they were pointed to a comment somewhere that just referred to their previous sanctions and I don't blame those who got the impression that there was no new editing that justified the sanction. I think I figured it out in the end. But as I say, it's only intended as the slightest of criticism; I can easily understand that you feel you've explained yourself repeatedly and then someone new comes to the situation and wants it all explained again. GoldenRing (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC as RS

I think you closed that prematurely, although it was obviously becoming loonbait. Before I just reopen it again, request review, or whatever bureaucratic nonsense-name wiki uses, would you mind explaining the closure? Anmccaff (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC) PS: I suspect the recent WP:CHK block of one of the more ...vocal?...participants is also relevant to this. Anmccaff (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The purpose of the noticeboard is to solicit community feedback (and, ideally, come to a consensus) on sourcing questions. The thread in question successfully solicited quite a bit of feedback, and there was a clear consensus in answer to the two original questions asked at the top of the thread. The thread then devolved into a weird dynamic where one editor (Carptrash) would make poorly-informed assertions and other editors would rebut them as false. It gave the impression that Carptrash was intent on denigrating the source by any means necessary, and was throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall to see what would stick—in others, not a very productive exercise.

Since the relevant questions had already been answered by consensus, I didn't see a lot to be gained by leaving the thread open as a platform for further off-topic argumentation. I see your point about Morty C-137, who's been blocked for sockpuppetry. I think it's appropriate to discount his participation in the thread, but even doing so, the consensus regarding the SPLC's utility as a source was pretty clear. In what sense do you think the closure was premature? Do you disagree that there was consensus with regard to the two questions asked at the top of the thread? MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you know, a common reaction to real or perceived bad faith editing is to circle the wagons, fixing consensus on the status quo, and Morty appeared to go out of his way to fan the flames there, possibly for just that reason.

I think a real answer to the question is a little more nuanced than what we got; SPLC's writings range from scholarly to legal to advocacy to fundraising, and how authoritative their output is varies dramatically with that.

This particular source is a focused call for action, complete with instructions, answers to frequent defenses of the status quo, and so forth. It's persuasive and polemic, rather than scholarly or investigative, and its standing should reflect that. Anmccaff (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you made that point at WP:RSN. However, there is not much that can be done once a discussion wanders off-track. There is no doubt that noticeboards watchers (I am one) saw the discussion, and there is no doubt that the people who chose to comment answered the questions posed. Whether the evident consensus was valid or was poisoned by a now-blocked sock cannot be resolved at WP:RSN and continuing back-and-forth arguments is unproductive. My view is that WP:RSN cannot answer such generic questions—that is why the edit notice visible when adding a comment requests "The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes." Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I've been in transit. I agree with Anmccaff that the close was premature. The discussion began on Friday the 13th (omen?) and ended on the 15th, plus it was the weekend. There are still legitimate concerns over the reliability of the lists created by SPLC that we didn't get a chance to discuss with other uninvolved editors at RSN. The whole memorial/monument issue became highly volatile after the tragedy in Charlottesville, to the point that a sportscaster named Robert Lee couldn't call the U. VA game. With the latter in mind, WP editors should be trying to maintain a safe distance from any form of advocacy, regardless of our personal leanings. SPLC is both a primary source and a legal advocacy that has raised quite a few brows over its long list of "hate groups". They listed Ben Carson as a Neo-Nazi, (since removed), and also included Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz in their list of hate groups. If we accept SPLC's list as a RS for this purpose, are we not giving weight to an advocacy, the latter of which has a political element? Our List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials should adhere to NPOV and be factually accurate per WP:V as well as compliant with WP:PRIMARY which clearly states Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. That isn't what is happening at the topic article - just look at footnote 5. While I agree that SPLC can be a place to start, we should not be solely dependent on it as a RS. Verifiability and interpretations must come from secondary sources such as academic publications, historic journals and archived news sources rather than advocacies and online news if we are to ensure that our list contains only those honorariums/monuments/memorials that were actually dedicated to the Confederacy, or named for the Confederacy and are not simply an historical marker or other symbol of the era. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of confused thinking here. I don't have the patience to unpack the confusion between primary and secondary sources, other than to say that I think your interpretation is incorrect. I also don't think that ESPN's personnel decisions, however misguided, have any bearing on whether the SPLC is a reliable source. You also have several other strange ideas; for example, you seem to think that if you label the SPLC an "advocacy" group, then it cannot be a reliable source. This is clearly wrong; to take only one example, the US National Academy of Sciences is both a highly reputable source and an advocacy group (for instance, its members decried the right-wing political assault on climate scientists). Surely that act of advocacy doesn't lead you to believe that the Academy is no longer a reliable source when it comes to climate science (or any other sort of science, for that matter)?

Additionally, you argue that we shouldn't be "solely dependent" on SPLC as a reliable source. No one has ever suggested that we depend solely on the SPLC. That's not what being a reliable source means. It means that the SPLC can be used as a reliable source, and that where other, equally reliable, sources, disagree with the SPLC, then these other sources should also be cited with appropriate weight. It also means that editors should not reject the SPLC out of hand as unreliable, since there was a clear consensus that it is a reliable source.

I don't believe that the closure was premature. The thread attracted a great deal of outside, uninvolved input—in fact, much more so than the typical RS/N thread. There was more than sufficient outside input to see that a clear consensus existed. As I mentioned above, the tenor of discussion had deteriorated substantially toward the end of the thread's open interval, and that was also a factor in my decision to close it. MastCell ^Talk 01:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - well, you misinterpreted pretty much everything I said, but if you truly believe 2 days over the weekend constitutes ample time for discussion at RSN, then all I can say is thank you for taking the time to explain your position. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I've misunderstood you, then you're welcome to elaborate. Or not, as you see fit. MastCell ^Talk 15:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can continue where we left off when I'm enjoying the comforts of home, and not residing in the living quarters of a horse trailer in the parking lot of the All American Quarter Horse Congress - "Congress", not in the political sense, although we do see plenty of horse's asses at this show. *lol* ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion - Video RfC

Hi! You may be interested in the RfC proceeding on talk:Abortion. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact I'm not, but thanks for asking. MastCell ^Talk 15:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I may have plagiarised you a bit here, but I always loved that comment, and you know what they say about imitation and flattery. Hope you are well. Regards. -- Begoon 12:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Plagiarising MastCell is a superior way of looking clever on this site — I've even got special little notes about it. Placing a watertight block for tendentious editng? No problem, just check out User:Bishonen/Useful warnings#Block messages, the fourth bullet. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I just read your userpage. :D Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm glad you enjoyed it. Happy editing! MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NPOV and editorial judgement

So my question to you refers back to our BLPN discussion, particularly with respect to when an editor challenges material as being noncompliant with BLP, NPOV, (adding WP:NOTSOAPBOX #2 which brings in the element of "opinion"), and taking into consideration the fact that the article was originally created by a sock master who plagiarized content from the main BLP, and reverted an NPR's redirect (which probably should have been a speedy based on plagiarism), and continues to harass and launch PAs to keep material in the article, undeniably soapboxing at every turn, are you still of the mind that the challenged material should remain in the article before community consensus can be reached? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a sentence. Let me try to unpack it clause-by-clause.

... the article was originally created by a sock master... I'm not sure whether that has any bearing on the purported WP:BLP violation at this stage. Obviously I'm opposed to the inappropriate use of alternate accounts, and over the years I've done quite a bit to address that problem. But once the article has been edited extensively by other, good-faith, accounts, then I don't think there's much value in pointing back to its provenance to justify specific edits that you favor or disfavor.
... who plagiarized content from the main BLP... I think this is a misuse (or misunderstanding on your part) of the term "plagiarism". Do you mean that s/he duplicated content from the main article (Joe Arpaio) into the pardon of Joe Arpaio sub-article? If so, that is not "plagiarism" in any sense of the word. Sub-articles often duplicate at least some of the text from their "parent" articles. Obviously, such duplication should be limited, because it creates redundancy (and if the entire sub-article is mostly just a duplication of the parent article, then one could wonder why a sub-article is necessary). But the process of creating sub-articles using text from a parent article is distinct from plagiarism, which involves copying from non-Wikipedian sources without attribution. If you meant something different, then please correct me. But assuming I've interpreted your "plagiarism" charge correctly, I think it's once again an example of using an inappropriate and inflammatory term, which is distracting and counter-productive in resolving the dispute in question.
... reverted an NPR's redirect... As an aside, it's worth making an effort to reduce the use of abbreviations, in the interest of clear communication. I've been on Wikipedia for more than a decade, and I had to stop and think for a few minutes before I understood what "NPR" referred to in this context. Substantively, it appears that the creator of the article was quite properly blocked as a sockpuppet; I'm not sure what relevance that revert has to the current discussion surrounding the article, which has evolved substantially in the interim.
... which probably should have been a speedy based on plagiarism... Again, this is not plagiarism, and certainly not grounds for speedy deletion. This is a basic policy matter and, while I don't want to sound like a jerk, you should really understand it by this point in your Wikipedia career, or at least not push so aggressively on the basis of your misunderstandings.
... continues to harass and launch PAs to keep material in the article, undeniably soapboxing at every turn... This is genuinely problematic. I will look at the article as time permits to see what can be done to keep the sockpuppeteer in question from disrupting it further. If you have suggestions in this regard, please let me know.
... are you still of the mind that the challenged material should remain in the article before community consensus can be reached? Finally, the actual question! :) I'm of the mind that this is not a WP:BLP issue. If it were a BLP issue, then yes, it would be subject to removal upon being challenged, and until consensus was reached to include it. I see this as a question of WP:NPOV, specifically whether and how to include content from a reliably sourced opinion piece. That is a matter for editorial judgement, but it is not a BLP issue and therefore its removal is not inherently privileged. This is a misuse of BLP as a weapon to bolster your position in a content dispute. I note that I am hardly the only one telling you this. At present, in the associated WP:BLP/N thread, there's a clear consensus that the material in question does not violate WP:BLP. One editor, Masem, has partially supported your argument, while virtually everyone else has indicated that they disagree with your interpretation. Yet you've seized on the areas of partial agreement from Masem, praised his response as the only relevant one, and essentially ignored everyone else constituting a consensus against your argument. That's where "I didn't hear that" comes into play. I have no strong feelings about whether the Washington Post opinion piece should be included, or whether the pardon of Joe Arpaio article should be merged back into the Joe Arpaio article. Those are issues for interested editors to sort out on the relevant talkpages. But in order for that to happen, there has to be an openness to hearing what others are saying. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and I cannot overemphasize how much I appreciate your input - your efforts have not gone to ~~waist~~ ^{Freudian slip as I sit here typing instead of running 2 miles} waste. I actually am open to what others are saying - I do read it, evaluate it, and make a determination based on policy - not unlike what we're supposed to do when closing at AfD, and why I believed the response from Masem to more closely reflect applicable policy in this instance - not at all discounting what you said. ^{I know better than to tangle with a 500lb gorilla! 😜}^[FBDB]

For clarification purposes regarding this particular article, I turned to admins and editors I trust; those with tenure and experience - not saying all consistently reflect my POV, but different views are what I seek in order to properly weigh & measure a determination for middle ground. I will always be querying and learning in an effort to be the best I can be because I do take pride in my work, and want to do a good job and be fair to all. I do worry a bit that you may have formed the wrong impression regarding my work and motivations, which is why I'm providing a bit of background on the article in question. We cannot dismiss the widespread hatred for Trump by MSM et al, but emotion is not a basis on which to create/edit encyclopedic content. There is no denying the sock is soapboxing which probably did incite a level of frenzy. I have always maintained a steady-~~ass~~ as-you-go, pragmatic position - I do listen to both sides - and prefer policy-based arguments that are relevant to the circumstances. In this particular case, the topic is a controversial pardon, not the person who was pardoned. I'm not trying to change/correct anything at the BLP, Joe Arpaio.

Re: plagiarism - copying content (including text, images, and citations) from one Wikipedia article to another or from one language Wikipedia to another is not plagiarism as long as attribution is provided via the edit summaries. If my memory serves, I believe the article was in the NPP queue as a redirect Nov 13th, and redirected by NPR, and discussion ensued on TP without any attribution. I came across it, thought copyvio applied after copyvio check showed 96.5% likely, then changed it to plagiarism because there was no attribution. Reviewing TP edits, I saw that other editors had brought up concerns of POVFork, the sock master argued with both editors, a TP header was added but still no attribution. An editor fixed the no attribution issue after discussion ensued on my TP and Primefac commented. I know, I know - it's complicated. I've been working my ass off trying to get the article right, trying to eliminate the technical issues beginning with the irregular copy/paste and sock reverts.
Re: the sock master: my 1st encounter was with User:Infamia which was determined to be the notorious sock master User:Kingshowman. The disruption peaked over the weekend, and has not ceased.
Re: This is a misuse of BLP as a weapon to bolster your position in a content dispute. - ouch, that hurt. I hope the information I've provided addresses your concerns over my intent. I would never use BLP as a weapon to bolster anything. That is not who I am. My only concern is the quality of the information we include in WP. I won't ping other admins to verify what I'm saying because I believe, and have confidence, that you will take what I've written into careful consideration. My position and editing patterns have always been consistent with policy...obviously to a fault. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued reference to "an NPR's redirect" and "redirected by NPR" makes it sound like you believe that New Page Patrollers have some special rights or primacy over the editorial decision to split or merge articles. I was under the impression that we don't allow even admins to do this. If admins are "just another editor" in a decision to split a page, then surely NPPers are equally to be treated as "just another editor" in such decisions.

Also, the licensing situation that you described is a curable defect. See WP:RIA for the instructions. Any editor can fix that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what a NPP can or can't do, and your interpretation isn't even close to what I was saying. It might help to AGF. There's only so much information one can include in a discussion before tl;dr comes into play - we're probably already past that point - so newcomers to this discussion may need to do a bit of homework before jumping to conclusions. I'm also aware of WP:RIA (lucky you if you can remember all the acronyms and initialisms, I can't). My typical routine in reviewing an article before I start editing - especially a new article where there's already disruption - is to find out why, when and where to make sure it's notable, properly sourced, policy compliant, etc. When there's citation overkill - a single statement had 22+/- citations - it raises a red flag for me. Little did I know that we'd be dealing with one of the worst POV pushing sock masters on WP. If you're curious to know how the article was created, see User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-11#Pardon of Joe Arpaio and this diff. Alrighty then...as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is now at the point that it's going nowhere, so I'm getting out before we get there. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Turkey Day!

Me:I was going to serve yams with Thanksgiving dinner, but I sat on them. Mom: What are you serving now? Me: Squash.	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly want to challenge a sock farm...

You said you were serious about socks. Ok, I believe you. What can you do about this one? It's not so much me they're harassing; rather it's about them making fools of our admins & CU ability which equates into WP's inability to control them. If that doesn't scream changes needed to the "anybody can edit" mantra, I don't know what does. I also know that it's usually not a big deal when those in charge are not the ones being targeted...but that's today...who knows what tomorrow will bring? It's better to nip it in the bud. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that he's making a fool of admins and checkusers; I think those people would be the first to acknowledge the limitations of our available toolkit for dealing with sockpuppetry. As far as what I can do, I will block socks when they're identified, if another admin doesn't get to it first; feel free to ping me. The next step up would be to ask a checkuser to look for associated accounts, if any, and to ask an admin more technically facile than I to consider a rangeblock if appropriate. That's pretty much it.

In my experience, the solution to large-scale socking is social rather than technical. What's the payoff for this particular sockmaster to spend his/her time this way? Usually it's the reaction they're getting; sometimes it's the opportunity to trip up opponents, or the chance to influence content, but most often they're just trolling. The best approach in my mind is to deal with them quickly and efficiently and to then move on. Eventually they'll get tired of it, or their mom will make them move out of the basement or whatever, and they'll stop. As for "anybody can edit"... yeah. MastCell ^Talk 01:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you! Following is a brief intro to Old MacDonald had a sock farm E-I-E-I-OUCH:

User:Kingshowman

User_talk:Kingshowman

User:Kingshowman_Returns

User:Kingshowman_Says_Hello!

User:Kingshowman_Rises

User:Kingshowman_Rises_Again

User:64.251.121.244

User:107.77.224.122

User:Infamia

2600:1017:b42e:45b4:b4b3:c34b:1771:55a1
2600:1017:B40A:92B3:10B:CE99:7F3C:12BA
2600:1017:B408:14DF:F960:B127:D052:EB66
2600:1017:B415:1E0C:21C7:C02B:3C0A:767F
2600:1017:B400:815E:7D94:C251:BEA1:206C
2600:1017:B400:815E:8992:FEEE:349A:99BA
2600:1017:b40e:40f:8d50:2a5:83fa:65b9

User:209.140.35.48

User:The Tortfeasor

User:Competence is Required Bot

User:63.143.240.94

User:Son of Supervoter

User:The Evil Sourceror

User:Warrior for Truth

User:Edit Warrior for Truth)

User:Peacebroker

User:BelowAverageIntelligence

He/she is widely known among CU & admin ranks... ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{Atsme📞📧}, please stop inserting libelous material about me onto the talk pages of every administrator you know. That last sock “BelowAverageIntelligence” is CLEARLY not mine. I can’t even understand why you would possibly think it is. Do you simply assume that everyone who objects to your edits is me? (In which case almost everyone must be my sock, since basically no one agrees with you in these disputes.) Further, you have forgotten to list my many good deeds, such as the creation of Donald Trump-Russia dossier and Pardon of Joe Arpaio, two articles you seem intent on gutting with your vandalistic destruction of well-sourced content to push your misguided political agenda. Auf wiedersehn!2600:1017:B417:CDE2:28A2:EEB7:288:6B23 (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^^^There you have it, MastCell - Oshwah and other admins are where I got the information for the list. Good luck with this one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My advice stands; to the extent you can ignore this and go about your business, that's the most effective approach. It sucks, and I've been on the receiving end so I can empathize. If you find that s/he is interfering with article or talk-page edits, then please let me know and I'll see what I can do. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will do as you advised. Thank you!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, MastCell - you've seen one image of me as "not one of the most "difficult" editors...now here's a peek into the future! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you

Thanks for the nice message! Hope you are keeping well my friend. Give me a buzz if you are interested in Wikipedia research, we have a few ideas for further studies in health education and would love an expert opinion. All the best Samir 03:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MastCell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Franks

Hi MastCell,

I made the edit on the Trent Franks page because the phrase "to allow him to impregnate her" creates a negative sexual connotation when in fact the process is done in a hospital and it is a surgical one. The phrase unnecessarily sensationalizes the issue, as it would be if someone lost an arm in a car accident and it was added, "and the blood spilled in the interior", which adds no further information, just gore. It also is, in fact, inaccurate, as it is not the subject impregnating the woman, and it is not sperm, but already fertilized eggs that are placed in the surrogate womb.

In addition, no where in the cited articles is that phrase used, and for good reason, because it is completely inaccurate.

67.84.157.23 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)John[reply]

Please, tell me more about how hospitals and surgery work! :P You seem to be pretty misinformed on a fundamental level, which is ironic given your lecturing tone. The process you're describing is one form of surrogacy—so-called gestational surrogacy. However, surrogacy doesn't always involve hospitals or surgery. In many cases, it involves insemination of the surrogate mother, either artificially or in more traditional ways. This is so-called traditional surrogacy, and it most certainly does involve impregnating the woman using sperm. If you'd like to educate yourself, our article on surrogacy is halfway-decent and might keep you from looking foolish in the future.

Moving on to the cited sources, they certainly make very clear that Franks discussed impregnating his staffers the "old-fashioned" way (i.e. not in a hospital, and not surgically). You claim to have read the sources (and assert that I haven't). So while we all make mistakes, this looks more like either willful ignorance or intentional deception on your part. The term "impregnate" is used repeatedly in the cited sources, so you're either lying or just wrong when you assert otherwise. Granted, the exact phrase I used is not found verbatim in the article, because our role is to summarize and paraphrase the content of sources rather than to simply quote them verbatim.

I'm going to restore the language in question; I'd suggest that you make more of an effort to familiarize yourself with the basic facts and sources involved before reverting and lecturing people. MastCell ^Talk 01:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agsin, this is why I don't waste my time on Wikipedia. Basically whomever wants to take the most time reverting edits will win, regardless of how incorrect or ill-informed.

I appreciate your effort in writing the articles you have, and maintaining them, but again, no where in the sources, which I again read in their entirety in case I missed something the first time, does it mention him saying he wanted to personally "impregnate her sexually" which has a different connotation. Obviously you realize that, which is why you insist on putting your phrasing in the head of the article without further explanation as an attempt to besmirch not to inform. The New York Times source you refer to says that the women "worried that" he was "suggesting" that he wanted to impregnate them, which is a very different thing than him admitting it or it proven to be fact. Both the AP article and the Washington Post article _do not_ state what you are saying. As a matter of fact the Washington Post seems to go out of it's way to explain:

"The surrogacy process typically involves removing an egg from the mother, fertilizing it with sperm from the father, then placing the fertilized egg in the uterus of the surrogate, who carries it to term."

Allegations cannot be determined as factual unless there is an admission of guilt or a trier of fact's conclusion in a court of law is proven beyond a standard of determination. What you are doing is displaying heresay as fact, and whether by ignorance or done willfully, it is wrong, incorrect, without reasonable explanation, does not meet a standard of determination, and not factually accurate. Contrary to my "lecturing", your position is demonstrably biased and regardless, does not meet the factual standard for Wikipedia, much less being placed in the head of an article.

67.84.157.23 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources make clear that the women felt Franks intended to impregnate them sexually, not via in vitro fertilization. No amount of spin can really obscure that, although I appreciate the effort you're putting into it. You also don't seem to understand the concept of hearsay. It's a legal term. On Wikipedia, we can and do report what you call "hearsay" if it is properly sourced. If your concern is that the women alleged that Franks wanted to impregnate them sexually, then I've edited the article to reflect that this was their reported concern rather than something Franks himself admitted to. Nonetheless, this clearly meets the bar for inclusion on Wikipedia; please review WP:BLP and particularly this section of the policy. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation to help

Saw the Joan Shenton article recently, and I would love your feedback and help as I know you have experience with AIDS denial and associated topics and the article in it's current state is far too editorially complimentary rather than NPOV IMO. My editing skills are pretty weak as I have been out of the loop for awhile. Thanks. Supaflyrobby (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Seeing this, I took a look and tweaked - though it's a problematic article & so hard to "polish a turd". Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Olivette

Hi Mastcell. Would you consider redirecting this subject to her husband ~~Henry~~ Harry Stockwell as the nom suggested in the discussion? This would be a better outcome per wp:preserve and would allow me to merge any relevant bits (if any). Thanks for your consideration. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't feel strongly. If you want to re-create it as a redirect to Harry Stockwell then that's fine with me. MastCell ^Talk 01:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. How do I do that? Did someone else delete the article? And i was going to add before an edit conflict: "*Also, looking at the original AfD, 2/4 voted were for merge/redirect. There were no votes to delete. The other two were for keep." FloridaArmy (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I can only recreate it with the history hidden (deleted)? How do I see if there's anything to merge? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about Deletionpedia. I think itbshould be there. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I was offline. Did you find a copy of the article? There was basically no substantive content in it—just the names of a few films in which she appeared, and a link to her obituary in the New York Times. I didn't see anything merge-able. That said, I can put a copy of the deleted article in your userspace temporarily if you'd like to look through it for salvageable items. MastCell ^Talk 01:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mastcell, having had a look at the husband's article I think a merge makes sense. It seems pretty sexist to constantly cover somewhat notable wives in their husbands articles, seema to me more appropriate to spin them off. But I have to abide by consensus. If you would be so kind as to move it to my user or draft space I will merge the key bits. Thanks for your help. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a cup of hot tea...

...and was thinking about your sweet lil ole pedantic self. Actually, the provocation for that thought is nestled snuggly in the middle of 2 other letterhead quote boxes near the top of my TP. It's called "Five surgeons..." ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I can't stand surgeons. You know the saying: "Often wrong, but never in doubt." :P But if the shoe fits... MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's thirsty work, deadpanning ;)

I had just typed "one edit six years ago...that would make him more powerful than Jimmy Wales!" with incredulity...when the penny dropped. Great line :) —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Tom Lehrer observed, once an institution has become sufficiently absurd, it is effectively impervious to satire. Wikipedia passed that point of no return... well, around six years ago. :) Thanks for the beer! MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Appendectomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umbilicus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be gentle...

...quite the attention getter, huh? Just wanted to say...we actually agree on more things than we disagree. I am not asking for exclusion of material; rather, I'm simply asking that it be included properly; i.e., contentious labels using in-text attribution, opinions not stated as facts in WikiVoice, and so on - the sum of all knowledge, not the exclusion of it. Our PUBLICFIGURE policy states: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. With the latter in mind, think Circular reporting, WP:NEWSORG and this footnote which applies to WP:N, but is also applies to how WEIGHT is determined. WP:BIASED states: Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. but the problem we're facing is that some articles cite only those sources, and the different viewpoints are omitted under the guise of WEIGHT. Just curious...would you answer just one question for me? What conservative sources do you consider to be RS for supporting information about the different viewpoints? ^{In closing...I actually crafted what I thought was a good response to your question on my TP but you didn't respond. I hope that doesn't indicate a "cooling-off period" for you...and potentially new meaning for the word "stormy"} ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you're asking the wrong question. In my view, we shouldn't use "conservative" sources to explain viewpoints, any more than we should use "liberal" ones. Instead, liberal and conservative viewpoints should be explained using the best available independent, reliable sources. It's actually not hard at all; if a partisan viewpoint is notable, then it will have attracted coverage by reputable journalistic outlets, and those are the sources that should be used to describe it. If you can't find reputable coverage of a viewpoint, then the solution is to exclude it as non-notable—not to look for partisan sources to support it.

I'm a big believer that actions speak louder than words. So, if you're willing, I'll suggest an exercise. Go through my article edits, and look at instances where I've added sourced content to articles on political topics. Then look at the sources I use. Honestly, I don't keep track, so I don't know what you'll find, but here's what I think (and hope): I don't use partisan sources; I don't use right-wing websites like The Blaze or Breitbart, nor do I use left-wing sites like Daily Kos or Talking Points Memo; instead, I use independent, reliable sources, such as reputable journalistic outlets. If you find that I'm not doing that, then please let me know.

I have to say that I see a concerted effort by a handful of people to create a separate set of Wikipedia policies to cover Donald Trump and his Presidency. I think that's a bad idea, regardless of the motivations of the people pushing it, in part because it entails an effort to undermine and sabotage reliable sources, and to recast them as untrustworthy. Our existing policies will work just fine to cover Trump—just like they've worked to cover other controversial figures—as long as we have a sufficient core of people who understand and apply those policies. That's why I've been particularly disappointed in you, and in a few others like Masem, who have consistently pushed the idea that reliable sources cease to be reliable once they publish material that reflects negatively on Donald Trump. And before you protest, that is exactly the argument being made. It goes something like this:

DONALD TRUMP: <says something widely perceived as racist>.
MEDIA: Today, Donald Trump said something widely perceived as racist.
YOU/MASEM: The media are biased against Donald Trump!!! They are no longer reliable sources.

I'm sure we agree more than we disagree, and I enjoy talking to you, but at the same time I'm going to be honest with you, as I hope you would be with me, and say that I don't think this is OK. It's corrosive to the effort to create accurate and honest coverage. I'm also old-fashioned in that I think that the more prevalent misinformation is online, the greater responsibility Wikipedia has to push back and provide accurate material, especially given this site's prominence. That's how I've gotten involved in a lot of the content work I've done—I see the impact that online misinformation has on people seeking "natural" therapies for their ailments, or on women considering terminating their pregnancies, or on people facing a bewildering diagnosis, or on people trying to make sense of the reams of bullshit that surround any politically charged issue, and I see my role here as pushing back against that misinformation. Before you quote WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, remember that Wikipedia exists to right these wrongs, and to serve as a compendium of human knowledge and a bulwark against ignorance. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your inviation and will start fresh in the morning. In the interim, if you can squeeze a bit of quiet time into your day, take a look at my response to Tryp, if you haven't already. The sources I linked speak volumes. As for the news, satire is often closer to reality than one may imagine.

Regarding your example, I'm afraid you missed the mark, but I take full responsibility for the confusion. I'll try to do a better job at explaining next time around. For now, I'll leave you with a few thoughts to ponder...

Read the lede for Barack Obama, then read the lede for Donald Trump. I'm curious to know your thoughts about the ledes.
I believe that what we learn from things we read and what we write as editors are more strongly influenced by perception than by bias. "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." ~ Anaïs Nin
I disagree that media is/should be the determining factor for what is "widely perceived as racist", regardless of bias. I do realize that as editors, the material we write must be supported by RS - I don't have a problem with that - my concerns arise when opinions are stated as facts in WikiVoice and when contentious labels are used without in-text attribution..."There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception." ~ Aldous Huxley

Sleep well.

^{Atsme📞📧} 05:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Barack Obama and Donald Trump are two very different Presidents, and their articles appropriately reflect that. It would be misleading and non-neutral to try to force the leads to resemble each other, when the underlying subjects (and reliable sourcing) are so different. Since you bring it up, though, let me give you a little bit of history about our coverage of Barack Obama. This site was absolutely beset with sockpuppets and POV-pushers trying to include various right-wing conspiracy theories about Obama, from birther stuff to "seekrit Muslim" stuff to questioning his paternity and so on. It made the current issues with the Trump article look trivial, by comparison. By July 2008, during the campaign, Obama articles were already subject to discretionary sanctions. By May 2009, when Obama had been in office less than 5 months, the articles were the subject of a full-fledged Arbitration case because of a massive volume of tendentious editing and sockpuppetry.

To give you a flavor of what the atmosphere was like, consider this. At one point, a right-wing website (WorldNetDaily) published a piece alleging liberal bias on Wikipedia and claiming that the Obama articles had been scrubbed of criticism. The piece was picked up by Fox News and there was much hand-wringing, and a sense of vindication by right-wing editors. Eventually the other shoe dropped: a little bit of investigation revealed that the right-wing website had made provocative and policy-violating edits themselves, and then wrote a piece castigating the editors and admins who responded to their violations. The entire thing was fabricated, and then presented to falsely reinforce the narrative of bias, and Fox News and other "reliable" sources bought into it 100%. That was the environment of dirty tricks that existed at the time. So when you, or Masem, claim that the current environment surrounding the Trump articles is somehow uniquely toxic, well, I don't think that's correct.

More generally, you're proceeding from the assumption that in an unbiased Wikipedia, the leads of the Obama and Trump articles would resemble each other. That seems completely wrong, and counterfactual. A better question is: what would the lead of Obama's article look like if he had bragged to a reporter about being able to sexually assault women with impunity? What would the lead of Obama's article look like if he had slept with a porn star shortly after his wife gave birth, under the premise that he'd put her on his reality TV show, and then had his lawyer pay her hush money during his campaign? What would the lead of Obama's article look like if he'd praised a neo-Nazi gang as containing "very fine people"? And so on. Presumably you see where I'm going with this. It's like you're reading the lead of apple, comparing it to orange, and complaining that we don't describe the former as a citrus fruit.

Finally, let me clarify about the perception of racism. We are not relying on the media to determine whether something is racist. We are relying on the media to report when something is widely perceived as racist. I mean, even a person like Paul Ryan acknowledged that Trump's comments were, in one case, "the textbook definition of racist". That's not the media calling his comments racist, and when the media report on that, then you need to both respect what reliable sources have to say and avoid trying to twist it to pretend that the media are biased. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that history makes me glad I wasn't actively editing back then!

My late cousin, Donald, probably would have become a WP editor just so he could defend Obama (he was huge Obama & Bill Clinton fan). In fact, Don received an signed photograph from President Obama and VP Joe Biden with a handwritten thankyou for the role he played in supporting the administration and the Democratic party. All I've ever gotten were fund raiser letters marked URGENT. Don was a Command Sergeant Major of the US Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID), and long time Provost Marshall of Tripler Medical Center in Hawaii. (It was tough to go visit him, 8+ hr. flight and all

) Don was quite the character - an ambassaador to Japan, and he delivered the Keynote Speech to the 11th International Convention of the Shigakenjinkai in Shiga, Japan, November 2007 (his wife Toki is Japanese, and Don spoke the language fluently). In 2013 Representative Colleen Hanabusa entered his name into the US Congressional Record for his past achievements. We had our differences - I thought he was nuts for buying stock in Facebook, and he thought I was nuts for buying stock in Apple back when it was $8+/share in 1982-83. *LOL* He's greatly missed.

Back on point - I read somewhere that there were editors who geolocated to the WH or DC or something - interns or aids - who were editing WP articles but they all got busted...or did they? Must have been Republicans because Dems don't do that sort of thing, right?

I agree the ledes of Trump and Obama should not read the same but not for the same reasons you described. You're looking at a BLP's character - bragging, and allegations of sexual assault (referencing Trump, not Clinton) - and I'm looking at PAGs & MOS, and therein lies the major difference.

Political and religious articles are full of conflicts, and I don't see that changing anytime soon which I why it's best to strictly adhere to BLP & NPOV. There's no doubt that Obama was "the cool guy"...people loved him...but his presidency was not as glowing as what the article makes it appear. I first thought it was more representative of NPOV but the more feedback I read about justifying contentious labels in WikiVoice and that in-text attribution wasn't necessary as long as multiple RS said it, well I gave some thought to changing my perspective...until I realized that those rules only apply to Trump e.a., and not others. Editors dare not add criticisms to Obama's BLP the way criticisms, opinions and allegations are being added to Trump articles because what the media says about Trump justifies saying it in WikiVoice, but not what they say about Obama.

Well, I spent some time researching to get a better understanding of what supports such a perspective.

Couldn't find anything.

It's not just presidents, either. Perhaps you can explain the lede for Louis Farrakhan vs how multiple RS and even the SPLC describes his character and actions. And what about the latest reports and photo? Does that not belong in the Obama article? It's updated information so it's not RECENTISM as it is with Trump. I seriously doubt there would be any hesitation to create an article about Trump and David Duke ^{read Duke's lede and compare it to Farrakhan's} but despite the evidence surrounding Farrakhan, Obama and other Democratic politicians, n'ery a word about it that I can find. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

Another example: Racial views of Donald Trump includes a 3 paragraph section titled Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucus criticizing Trump about his racial views, but what about their ties to Farrakhan and their high profile liberal members who praise Farrakhan? Is that NPOV?

If we're going to be consistent with MOS and NPOV, then the double standards need to go away. Any editor who has spent any amount of time either reviewing or being reviewed for FA promotion knows exactly what I'm talking about when I say consistency. There's no reason for editors to compromise NPOV policy based on claims of false equivalency, false balance, or to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We need to get back to focusing on statements of fact while limiting contentious labeling & partisan opinions to in-text attribution, not WikiVoice. We need to stop portraying "wide-spread" when it's only a liberal POV or a wide-spread conservative POV, which tells us wide-spread needs a qualifier; i.e., it is a widely held view among liberals, or a widely held view in urban areas, and so on. I'm not wanting to eliminate the criticisms, or the opinions of a substantial number of people, regardless of their biases - but I do believe that what we include should be presented accurately, without the spin/editorializing, and with proper qualifiers and attribution - and the same should apply across the board regardless of political affiliation. Put simply, I expect adherence to our 3 core content policies - particularly NPOV and BLP which cannot be comprimised, even by editor consensus. And that is pretty much the sum of it in a gigantic nutshell, the size of which only a

could enjoy.

^{Atsme📞📧} 22:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this fascinating conversation and have to share some thoughts. I trust that each editor has their own style for approaching how to add content and create articles. I think it's a mistake to start with an imagined ideal scenario for how an article should appear, and then strive to create that appearance. At any given time in history, RS will say very different things about very different people, and their articles should be radically different. Only a very basic outline might be in common, and I think our MoS has recommendations of that type. That has little to do with the actual content slant in each section. It will (and should) be very different for different people.

How do I approach this? I start by collecting RS, lots of them, sometimes hundreds. Then I spread them out and see if there are any common themes and duplication. Those get put into the same section because they are on the same topic. Note it is the sources that determine the result. I can't (and won't) create a picture that I'd "like" to see, because I don't start with that idea. I let the sources create the picture they are telling. Then I document that picture. Just like MastCell, I stick to RS and don't use either far left or far right ones. I definitely don't let other things", like articles on similar types of people (other presidents, for example) be a guide for how I should write the new article. Again, it is the available RS which dictate the picture, and it should be very different than all others.

For example, a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts would be radically different because they have a radically different understanding and practice, and that's the picture painted by RS. I have researched the subject and it's fascinating. Right now, even a few sentences in a short paragraph in the Trump article is pretty much forbidden. (Even MelanieN supports it. I'd expect it of Masem, but her? That shakes my faith in humanity.) I have enough (over 300 VERY RS) for a rather long article about Trump, but I know that it would never be allowed because the consensus among RS is that he's a serial liar, it's very well-documented, not just opinion, and yet the dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. Such an article would be labeled an "attack page" by Atsme, even though it's only a documentation of what RS say, and that is what's supposed to dictate our content. The "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a policy here.

I'd like Atsme to try an experiment using the subject I mention above. Do searches about Trump and truth, lies, facts, etc. Especially study fact checkers. Totally ignore your usual right-wing fringe sources and stick to MSM RS. See what you find, and let us know the results. Then, if you have the energy, do a similar study of Obama, using the same types of sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Jimbo's talk page is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation.

-- A scoundrel, clearly :-) Colin°^Talk 11:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Of course, you know I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've copied Hidden Tempo's unblock request to AN from UTRS while leaving TPA disabled. The request can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_appeal_from_Hidden_Tempo TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hello, MastCell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CO at AE

Hi Mastcell,

I saw your comments at AE, and I'm glad to hear someone express the view of the severity of the use of email to try to influence content by CO. Sandstein has a point, though – a block longer than a month is not authorised as an AE action. So, to see whether there is support for a re-institution of the site ban, I wonder if the wiser approach is to approach ArbCom via ARCA or the community via AN. In either case, I think starting a discussion before a decision is reached at AE is sensible so that the "CO has already been sanctioned" argument is avoided. A discussion which includes AE-authorised sanctions are considered is needed, not one where only the AE options are on the table, IMO. What do you think? EdChem (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. I think events have moved on more quickly than I've been keeping up with (since I'm not especially active here anymore), but I do take your point. I think the right approach was taken here: a 1-month block is authorized as an AE sanction, but an indefinite block can also be applied by any admin (or, in this case, by a consensus of admins) as a standard non-AE action, to run concurrently. I think that's the most appropriate solution, bureaucracy notwithstanding; this is an editor who's given us the clearest possible indication that he's not suited for this site, who was given a "last chance", and who abused it. Thanks for your input to the AE request and here, and for your good work on this site in general. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog

Can you please log the result of the appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson State Office Building

Hello. Could you please restore Andrew Jackson State Office Building, which was deleted as a PROD, not AFD? Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: done. Not much content there, as you can see. I hope you can make something of it. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more referenced info.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted your take on this...

"Mueller warns many stories on Trump investigation not true" - it was published by the Washington Times and reprinted/republished by the AP. The Daily Caller and Business Insider also published it (can't find the links right now). Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office is warning that "many" news articles on the Trump-Russia probe have been wrong. The statement came out right after McClatchy reported that the Mueller investigation had evidence Cohen traveled to Prague in August or September 2016, which Cohen doubled-down on denying. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't have any special insight into the special counsel's investigation beyond what I read in the papers. My personal view is that it's entirely possible that Cohen lied about going to Prague, in the belief that he wouldn't be caught. It's also possible that McClatchy was misled by their source, or that the "scoop" is false information planted to discredit whatever mainstream media outlet took the bait. I don't know. It will come out in the wash, assuming of course that the special counsel's investigation is allowed to proceed to its conclusion. In terms of Wikipedia coverage, it's really simple; we just say that McClatchy reported XXX, but no other reliable sources have confirmed XXX and Mueller's spokesperson responded with a general warning about the accuracy of news coverage. Simple and correct. Then we update as new things come to light.

Now, I'm not a lawyer; I avoid lawyers like the plague, and all I know about the law I learnt from The Good Wife... but it seems to me that Cohen is in very serious trouble, because no judge would sign off on a raid of the President's personal lawyer without convincing grounds to suspect criminality. But again, that's just my opinion; I think things will become clearer as time goes on. MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of those people who sit on the information egg and let it incubate - maybe focus on other things for a few days to clear my head, then come back and sit on that egg again - it helps to avoid having egg on one's face later - so here I am - 100% in agreement with the way you phrased inclusion of the material, but question where it belongs. I have reservations that it belongs in Trump-Russia dossier because nothing indicates that it's even related, except for wishful thinking on the part of some reporters and editors. To include it now appears more as an attempt to justify the dossier - oh boy! Steele got it right! Well, maybe...but I'm thinking, Slow those ponies down to a walk, folks - looks like a cliff straight ahead.

I'm also wondering what encyclopedic value we're providing our readers with statements in Donald Trump Wealth such as, "The release of the Access Hollywood tapes in October 2016 put further pressure on his brand,[84] but real estate experts predicted a positive rebound from becoming president.[85]", and "In April 2018, an ex-Forbes reporter said that Trump had allegedly inflated his actual wealth in order to be included on the Forbes 400 listing.[88][89][90]"?? I'm thinking, so what? It has -0- encyclopedic value in an already bloated article that's pushing 85kB of readable prose, a substantial portion of which is about his presidency. Then we have a huge section, Racial views which are not even his views, but we also have an entire article about that same topic, Racial views of Donald Trump. Last check, Presidency of Donald Trump is pushing 106kB of readable prose, and the guy hasn't even completed 1-½ years, yet. All together, Trump-related articles are close to being the size of a standalone printed encyclopedia volume with more headline news than encyclopedic value. <---My opinion from a GA/FA reviewer perspective.

I think a big part of the frustration editors feel in relation to some of these political articles may stem from all the trivial/detailed desparagement; the majority of which is cherrypicked opinion journalism from various news sources with few statements of fact. Allegedly has been used to death, as has denies because with every unsubstantiated allegation comes equally as many denials. I cringe when I read some of this stuff, especially when compared to what Britannica and Oxford publish about the same/similar topics, which more closely represent my perception of what NPOV should look like. I realize WP has its own style, and that I'm only one tiny voice among many, but we have strayed from what WP claims it represents. We have strayed from NPOV while ineffectually attempting to convince others that our product is neutral. In the interim, we're losing editors to behavioral issues resulting from these highly controversial articles, and by doing that, we are allowing NOTNEWS and POV to dominate our pedia. Surely there must be a better solution to maintaining the quality of our pedia than consistently dragging editors to AE or ANI to eliminate the opposition? I realize admins focus on behavior, but that's treating a symptom, not administering a cure. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding for your viewing pleasure (because you don't have enough to do during the day 😊) - PBS article, scroll down to the chart. Then look at the lede of Racial views of Donald Trump. Here are other more recent 3rd party RS: Palm Beach Daily News, Palm Beach Post, Town and Country, Bloomberg, NYTimes. One would think, based on DUE and multiple sources, that his views would get a bit more mention in the lede of an article, and in the body text regarding his views, yes or no? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put this out there for you to consider: it may be that there is no way to describe some of the things Trump does without sounding, as you put it, "disparaging". He bragged to a reporter about sexually assaulting women with impunity. How do you propose we say that without sounding "negative" or "disparaging"? He defended a violent neo-Nazi mob as containing "some very fine people", and drew a moral equivalence between them and anti-Nazi protesters. How do we say that in a way that meets your definition of neutrality? He publicly begged the Russian government to hack and release the emails of his political opponent. And stereotyped Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers". He mocked a disabled reporter and the family of a US Army officer killed in combat. He's routinely dishonest, and promotes easily disprovable falsehoods, to a degree that is unprecedented even by modern political standards. None of these things are my opinion. All of them are facts reported by numerous reliable sources. If someone's words and actions frequently reflect negatively on them, that is not evidence that Wikipedia has a bias. Nor is it evidence that the mainstream media, or reliable sources, have a bias. I wish you (and others) would stop treating it as such. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have anything helpful in response to Atsmes comment about the Mar-A-Logo being missing from "Racial views of Donald Trump", or did you just want to write that big paragraph attacking Trump? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the kind of reflexive, unthinking silliness that I was trying to put my finger on. I'm not "attacking" Trump. I'm listing a number of things he's done—undisputedly, really, actually done—and asking Atsme how she would propose we cover those in what she considers a "neutral" fashion. I think that's a useful exercise, because it gets at the distinction between biased editing and accurate descriptions of a person's (negatively perceived) actions. If you choose to view it in starker battleground terms—as me "attacking" Donald Trump—then that's your prerogative, I guess.

As for Mar-A-Lago, I dunno. I don't edit Trump articles, and I don't know that we need a separate article on his "racial views" in the first place. That said, the fact that he was graciously willing to allow non-whites to pay to join his club doesn't exactly put him in the pantheon of civil-rights heroes. I mean, if the best that can be said for him is that he didn't bar non-whites or Jewish people from buying into Mar-A-Lago, then that seems like a remarkably low bar. Again, though, that's just my personal take. You could add it or not add it; I think either would be reasonable, and that's a matter for people who actually edit those pages to discuss. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for your time and consideration. With regards to having the article you may wish to read the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump racial views. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, Emir of Wikipedia, that's the thing--that big fat paragraph contains nothing but factual statements. You want to call that negative, you can--but that's not MastCell being negative. It's kind of like someone complaining about the weather report because it reports rain, rain, rain, when it's raining, raining, raining. Atsme, I looked at the Wash Times article (I did not see it recirculated by the AP on that page), and it has "The statement was reported by the Daily Caller and confirmed by The Washington Times." Neither of these are really accepted because their editorial standards have been found wanting. I assume that this is exactly the kind of thing that the DC and WT want to be accepted, that they are the kind of publication that wants to be relied on when making such statements, and I hope that they will become that kind of publication. Because that's the thing also: the outlets that some editors on Wikipedia disparage may have biased editorials that they like, but on the whole their reputations for fact checking and reliably reporting stuff is solid enough (no need to cite instances where they got it wrong; that is not the point here). Drmies (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accept not reject that the paragraph contained factual statements, but rather that it doesn't doesn't give any information which helps an the article "Racial views of Donald Trump". Whether it is positive or negative it would still have the same effect on the article, nothing, if what was written was was positive I could just have easily used the word praise instead of attack but my point about its helpfulness would still stand. Now that you have seen this discussion though Drmies do you have any views on the exclusion of Mar-A-Logo from the article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean from the racial views article? But it's not in there, or is that your point? And with "Mar-A-Lago", you mean the note that MastCell made, above? Meh. I'm kind of like MastCell in that I don't think, or am not sure, we should have the article in the first place. I don't really care since I have yet to play my first round of golf but I bet there's a bunch of people for who it's a bigger deal. I also think that the bar he set was exceedingly low, embarrassingly low, but I wouldn't argue much for inclusion. And I know reliable sources have commented on it--but that's not all that is required for inclusion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

☔️☔️☔️☔️ - only $25.00 ea. - get 'em before the sun starts shining! 😆 (<-- sorry...capitalism made me do it). Drmies - are you of the mind that those in media who are publishing the kinds of reports the Mueller spokesperson warned about are going to recirculate that warning despite the possibility it may prove damaging to their reputation? Business Insider stated the following about the WashTimes article (my underline): But this statement, confirmed by Business Insider, struck a different tone. I'm probably not as steadfast as you are about discounting conservative sources, especially the ones that maintain skepticism about conspiracy theories - but in the same breath, I don't write-off liberal sources, either. I really don't separate media into partisan compartments. As for RS we think we can trust - all have made major blunders at one time or another - and not all have made corrections; rather, they stand by their reports. Admission tends to open the flood gates to litigation. We can thank our lucky stars that WP has NOTNEWS, NEWSORG and RECENTISM. I commend those who had the foresight to author those policies. My focus is/always has been whether or not the material includes verifiable statements of fact, or if it's information from an anonymous source, or anti-whatever/whoever fodder. Pragmatist that I am, I don't support/encourage RIGHTGREATWRONGS or SOAPBOX - facts only, please. Chances are, I'll be dead by the time some of these unsubstantiated allegations in the world of politics are proven/disproven, but hey - what's the rush? 👻 ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry Atsme, but I didn't read past "I'm probably not as steadfast as you are about discounting conservative sources", for reasons that should be obvious. In case they're not: I discount bad sources. Please don't put words in my mouth. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...you just wanted to go play golf. Awww, Drmies - my comment wasn't meant to put words in your mouth...it was actually in response to "Neither of these are really accepted because their editorial standards have been found wanting." I probably should have said "analyzing" in lieu of "discounting". That's what happens when I attempt brevity. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I analyze them all in the same way. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, before I forget...you mentioned above ("I did not see it recirculated by the AP on that page"), so here is the link: AP Prague - 3rd story down. 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: there are a couple statements in your post above that I disagree with:

As for RS we think we can trust - all have made major blunders at one time or another... I think this is a meaningless, if not actively counterproductive, way of looking at things. Our standard for reliability is not the absence of errors; it's the presence of a robust mechanism for preventing and correcting errors. Put another way: both the New England Journal of Medicine and Snake Oil Monthly have published incorrect material in the past, but presumably we consider the former reliable than the latter. We don't throw up our hands and imply that they're equal because they've both made errors. I call this argument the Jayson Blair Gambit; in its most virulent form, it sounds like this: "You think the New York Times is more reliable than Breitbart? Well, the Times EMPLOYED JAYSON BLAIR! <mic drop emoji>"
Admission tends to open the flood gates to litigation. I'm not a lawyer, and I avoid lawyers like the plague on society that they are (except you, Brad, you're alright), but this doesn't seem correct to me. I think that acknowledging and correcting an error reduces, rather than increases, legal exposure.
We can thank our lucky stars that WP has NOTNEWS, NEWSORG and RECENTISM. I commend those who had the foresight to author those policies.. It's interesting that you cite WP:NEWSORG, which state: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. It feels like I frequently find you (and Masem) arguing that news reporting from well-established outlets should be disregarded, because of some poorly specified bias on the part of said outlets. Please don't make me comb through WP:RS/N for examples; I think you know what I'm talking about. And on a pedantic note, WP:RECENTISM isn't a policy; it's an "explanatory supplement" which carries no weight beyond the extent to which it reflects existing best practices.
My focus is/always has been whether or not the material includes verifiable statements of fact, or if it's information from an anonymous source, or anti-whatever/whoever fodder. OK, first of all, anonymous sourcing does not preclude relevance, notability, or accuracy. A lot of high-quality reporting relies on anonymous sourcing. I mean, would you have blocked Wikipedia from covering Watergate, because of Deep Throat's anonymity? You can't point solely to anonymous sourcing to block inclusion of material. Reliable news outlets are reliable in part because they handle anonymously sourced material in a responsible manner. As for being "anti-whatever", the problem (as I've tried to touch on above) is that you seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds.

This last point brings me back to my post above. I've answered your (and Emir's) question about Mar-A-Lago, albeit rather non-commitally since I don't feel strongly about it. What are your thoughts about my question? How can we cover the events I described above in a way that you'd consider neutral? MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my...I have somehow failed in my communication and caused you to form the wrong impression, or it could just be different perspectives. First of all, you're comparing a printed and highly reputable medical journal to online news sources - apples to oranges. News rooms/editors/producers simply don't operate that way. I wish we did have a MEDRS type system for our political articles and news sources.

My prior comment: "They all make major blunders..." Ok, I understand why you disagree but my comment is factually correct, and as authors, we should at least recognize that s%it happens, especially when people are working under the pressure of deadlines and monetary considerations. A more precise explanation of how things have changed in the world of journalism was pubished in Columbia Journalism Review and is worth the read, Magazines find there’s little time to fact-check online. Fact-checking - like the old gray mare - ain't what she used to be. The reason I brought it up was to increase awareness in an effort to avoid counter-productivity...and maybe...just maybe...it will help with editor retention. I've provided a few sources that will speak for me, one of which - the BBC article - mentioned WP. I fixed myself a strong beverage after I read it. CNN, NPR, and a Dartmouth research paper. The BBC article describes the paradigm shift I've referred to in the past, and actually wrote about back in 1997.
Regarding the litigation aspect, your analysis was this doesn't seem correct to me. I think that acknowledging and correcting an error reduces, rather than increases, legal exposure. Granted, media has more leeway than you or I when it comes to defamation and such. I'm no lawyer, either, but they have been in my employ before I retired. The "gotchas" can get pretty expensive. Sidebar FYI: Good article about admitting fault publicly, and if you happen to have a Dobermann, here's an interesting read. 😊
Reciting from memory, you recalled [me] (and Masem) arguing that news reporting from well-established outlets should be disregarded, because of some poorly specified bias on the part of said outlets. Now that's one I need to clarify, and I hope you will adjust your recollection accordingly. I think you're referring to SPLC and this discussion at RS/N. Masem also commented in that same discussion, The topic was about labeling someone a white supremacist in Wiki voice in the lede. I will admit that I am extremely cautious about what is stated in Wiki voice, especially in the lede of a BLP. I don't pass judgement or take sides for/against any BLP or their causes. That isn't my job here. For that particular case, the example I used to model after was ^{uh oh, here comes Godwin} Adolf Hitler, which happens to be a very well written GA. Those are the kinds of things I see in my mind's eye, not the evil character, or the oppressed, the guilty or the innocent, just the prose. I am dispassionate in tone when I'm in the WP zone.
Ok, the anonymous sources comment...I am not saying to exclude encyclopedic information that is worthy of inclusion, but keep in mind that WP:RSBREAKING recommends this handbook. These are the kinds of things that are second nature to me, as I'm sure things relative to your lifelong career are second nature to you. There are times when anonymous sources are perfectly acceptable, and it's even better when it leads to an arrest and conviction. As an old school journalist, I have no problem citing sources that publish credible information from anonymous sources if coupled with ethical journalism - but politics? Meh. What does concern me is NOTNEWS, but I do find RECENTISM useful. NOTNEWS clearly states: Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Well, we do. It also clearly states: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Well, that's another issue, too - all debatable, with the winning argument being that multiple RS published it so it's notable. Help me get this straight - WP:RS is a content guideline, whereas NOTNEWS is policy, so why are we giving higher priority to the guideline? Back on point - each case is different with anonymous sources - but I can't help but see 🚩🚩🚩 when allegations are being made by anonymous sources identified only as foreign nationals from Russia, and they're being paid by the political opponent of whoever was targeted for opposition research. I'd say to include it requires inline text attribution, and would pay close attention to WEIGHT.

Now to the final questions...I think what happened at Mar-A-Lago is notable and somewhat historic; therefore worthy of inclusion. We're writing an encyclopedia - matter-of-factly - not a novel about Trump's life, not a SOAPBOX, not a place to judge or condemn him for being an . If I were to include the Mar-A-Lago events, I'd use in-text attribution, and let the sources speak for us. I would include all the notable views, both positive and negative. It's really not difficult once the human factor is removed. I also believe that the WEIGHT of the Mar-A-Lago addition should be determined by the way things were at the time, citing those dated sources rather than citing current articles retrospectively. I think I've covered it all. Ball's in your court. ⛹🏀 ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this right here for you...^{Atsme📞📧} 05:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh...day-em...maybe Atsme has a point when she challenges material per NOTNEWS as evidenced by the inaccurate report by NBC & ABC which WaPo responded to by saying: Media mistakes are always bad, but the nature and timing of this one make it particularly unhelpful to the Washington press corps' collective reputation. I know you don't agree for whatever reason, but Houston, we have a problem. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know I keep saying this, but the standard is not perfection; it's responsibility. In this case, ABC and NBC published an erroneous claim and promptly corrected it. That commitment to correcting factual errors is a key component of Wikipedia's definition of "reliability". (Ironically, as the WaPo article you quoted makes clear, the Trump Administration has consistently made similarly false claims regarding "wiretapping", and failed to correct them, so there is a strong element of hypocrisy here). I don't know what you mean when you say that I "don't agree" there's a problem. What problem do you think I'm ignoring? Regarding the fivethirtyeight.com link you posted, I recall reading it when it was published last year, and I found it interesting and well-thought-out, like most stuff on that site. If you intend to make a specific point by posting it here, you'll have to be less cryptic. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are so incredibly polished and formal...if you were a word your antonym would be Drmies 😂 and I say that affectionately. Ok, so with less crypticism my point is that our policy NOTNEWS deserves more respect than what it's getting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty informal in real life. But here, your posts live forever; they're easily stripped of context; and online communication is devoid of the thousands of non-verbal cues that human beings rely upon. So I do my best to be precise, although the resulting tone ends up stilted. I also find that people here write way too much. If I write more than a paragraph, I usually hit "Show Preview", go back, and start removing sentences. It's challenging to approach a complex topic concisely. Most scientific journals have word limits for manuscript submissions—typically 3,000 to 5,000 words. It's really not easy to summarize a scientific story (background, methods, results, discussion) in so few words, but it does build character. Or something.

Regarding WP:NOTNEWS, I don't agree that it's being neglected. After all, WP:NOTNEWS begins with the admonition that "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within [Wikipedia's] coverage". It mostly enjoins us to avoid treating things like daily baseball scores as encyclopedia-worthy, despite the fact that they appear in reliable sources. Of course, there's always a tension between including everything on the day it's published vs. waiting, and I don't think there are easy answers. But ultimately, I don't think this is about WP:NOTNEWS per se. I think there's a fundamental schism about how Wikipedia should cover Trump's presidency, and people on either side of that schism are rummaging around for policies (like NOTNEWS) that serve their purposes. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One last question for you, MastCell — BullRangifer is spreading his mistaken beliefs and ill-will toward me because I have called out a few POV edits at a couple of Trump articles. He is misrepresenting my actions, and attempting to pigeonhole my work as being “pro-Trump” which couldn’t be farther from the truth. An example of my work is here. He has now posted parts of my TP discussions with you on his own TP and on the TP of NeilN in an effort to disparage me by including only the parts that support his POV while eliminating everything I’ve said as if to be meaningless, and to make me appear as though I don’t understand NPOV and that I am pro-Trump <— aspersions with zero diffs to back it up his claim. In fact, his method of presenting this discussion actually serves as an example of how he cherry picks speculation and unsubstantiated allegations in RS in order to paint his POV into all Trump-related articles - not counting his pedantic ramblings about Trump that inundate article TP and his user pages, the latter of which have become highly polemic and unmistakenly partisan, yet he has the audacity to cast aspersions against others.

He began his disinformation campaign with the following: I get the feeling that the following statement (from above) is a special pleading by Atsme that she, and other editors who share her pro-Trump POV on Trump-Russia subjects, are all somehow innocent and only "appear to have a POV" (and thus any POV issues), and that they are "incorrectly" and "undeservedly" labeled as pro-Trump: and then uses cherry picked parts of our discussion. I find his use of my good faith discussions with you here to be highly inappropriate, and would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as BullRangifer links to the actual discussion, I'd hope that people click through and read it, which solves the context problem. I appreciate your willingness to have these sorts of conversations, and I hope you always feel welcome to comment here. I am not willing, at present, to referee the dispute between the two of you. I've learned over the years that it's always a mistake to try to arbitrate a dispute when you don't have the time and resources to do it right. And right now, I don't have the time or resources to figure this one out. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true?

Fat derived stem cells? Have they established fat banks, yet? If so, I’d like to make a deposit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Trump POV pushing editor crew

I noticed that you chastised some users for pushing POV that anything critical of Trump should be challenged or removed. There's currently an ongoing operation on the part of several users, including one who was blocked for sockpuppetry, to sanitize Trump's Wikipedia articles of content about his racial views, his misleading claims about his academic background, any negative polling about him, etc. Since you made comments on this as an uninvolved admin in the past, I wonder if you wouldn't review some of the comments and behavior, including my own if you feel so inclined and for balance. I've already been warned for making blanket allegations that Russian/GOP/NRA propagandists are trying to whitewash the article. More to the point, though, a number of users are on a crusade against consensus, reliable sources, and the discretionary sanctions that limit major changes to stable article text, or using the latter for cover to remove perfectly valid sourced material. Andrevan@ 00:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]