Archives

July 2006—January 2007 Feb 2007—March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007–July 2007 Old odds and ends Admin stuff, RfA through June 2007 July 2007 July–August 2007 August 2007 September 2007 September 2007 September 2007–October 2007 November 2007 November 2007–January 2008 January 2008 February 2008–March 2008 March 2008–May 2008 June 2008 June 2008–July 2008 July 2008–September 2008 September 2008–October 2008 October 2008–November 2008 November 2008–December 2008 December 2008–February 2009 February 2009–May 2009 May 2009–June 2009 June 2009–August 2009 August 2009–December 2009 December 2009–March 2010 March 2010–June 2010 June 2010–August 2010 August 2010–November 2010 November 2010–December 2010 December 2010–July 2011 July 2011–September 2011 September 2011–January 2012 January 2012–April 2012 April 2012–September 2012 September 2012–February 2013 February 2013–May 2013 May 2013–September 2013 September 2013–present (Date ranges are approximate)

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:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

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]

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]

I apologize, I should have taken your objections to primary sourcing more seriously and done my due diligence on reviewing Wiki-policy. Particularly on "reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" to make exceptional claims. - RoyBoy 19:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that some of our editors are mentally ill. However, please don't try to diagnose such issues with regards to specific editors. Could you refactor your recent comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales? We want to set a good example. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your concern is badly misplaced. You saw this threat from The Devil's Advocate that I was responding to. If you feel compelled to talk to people about their behavior, maybe you could take that up with him? I think threatening people with some sort of real-life exposure and harm is a bigger concern than my abstract statement that Wikipedia can be held hostage by anyone with a personality disorder and an Internet connection. To be clear, I don't feel threatened—based on his behavior here, I doubt TDA can tie his own shoes, much less actually collect information about my IRL identity and blackmail me with. But it is nonetheless a threat, and frankly I think my response was if anything excessively temperate under the circumstances. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TDA is being obnoxious, but I don't read that as a thread to expose you. If I did. I'd block them forever. In any case, there's an old saying by Mark Twain, to the effect that you shouldn't argue with a fool because an observer can't tell the difference. Why don't you try asking TDA to explain exactly what they meant. Perhaps they will clear up the confusion, or else they might make a proper, over threat that would expose things so that they can finally be resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems I am being discussed here, let me weigh in: I was not threatening to expose anyone. When I presented a simple opinion about whether we should block people on the basis of personal opinions held off-wiki and MastCell called me an extremist I responded with what I said as a reminder of that verse from the good book saying "Judge not lest ye be judged." Simply put, MastCell should be more wary of advocating this approach in relation to on-wiki action since he himself may find that coming back to bite him. The fact that the people most interested in having people banned for their personal opinions also happen to be the ones who most often let their personal opinions get in the way of policy-compliant editing is #JustWikipediaThings.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Mastcell wants your opinion, I am sure he can go to your talk page and ask. Unless that happens, please remember another saying: better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where the heck is that statement that used to be on your talk page about how "we're all eventually going to lose it and get indef blocked, the goal is to do the most we can before that"? Except it sounded classier than that when you said it. As a prolific creator of such insights, you have a certain obligation to the rest of us to organize them and make them available for others to quote when we need them. Having a bunch of collapsed sections, not one of which is labelled "Floq, what you're looking for is in this one", does not help me at all.

Although it's also possible it's right there staring me in the face and I'm going to be embarrassed when you point it out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently #2 on the Cynic's Guide. I move them around from time to time, mostly to force people to expand the collapsed sections and read through all of them. :P I definitely feel like I've moved pretty close to the point of no return over the past year or two here. I used to deal more effectively with the constant background hum of fuckwittery around this place, but as you can see even just one section up, my patience is running pretty thin. In any case, it is always a pleasant surprise to hear from you, and I hope you're well and enjoying your escape from the ArbCom Catch-22 (if you're sane enough to be a good Arbitrator, then you're sane enough to get the hell off the Committee as soon as possible). MastCell ^Talk 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss that he escaped the committee? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact he's a good illustration of the Catch-22—elected on the basis of his sanity, but as a result quickly realizing that only a crazy person would want to serve on the Committee. MastCell ^Talk 15:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a typo (added a missing "a") to one of the quotes. (The "Lit" portion of my personality sort of requires me to do such things.) LHM^{ask me a question} 15:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - much appreciated. :) MastCell ^Talk 15:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And who knew that my above post would also demonstrate the literary technique of Irony, albeit unintentionally? LHM^{ask me a question} 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you like unintentional irony, then you will love the Wikipedia "community". :) MastCell ^Talk 15:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, believe me, I've been around here long enough (started in late 2006, as a constructive IP) to understand that our "community" is sort of an amalgam of Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, and Nineteen Eighty-Four, with a splash of Lord of the Flies mixed in just to keep things interesting. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that complicated, and I'm wary of the loss of perspective that comes from assigning cosmic significance to the goings-on at one particular privately owned website. It's a simple matter of incentives. Look at the incentives Wikipedia provides, and you can understand why the "community" ended up the way it is. Whatever pleasing fictions we tell ourselves at WP:DR, content disputes on Wikipedia are resolved only when one side wears down the other. Rationality, perspective, empathy, a willingness to compromise and see other people's points of view—all of these are weaknesses in the Wikipedia model. On the other hand, obsessive tenacity, tunnel vision, pedantry, and an eagerness to fight are all highly incentivized here. We've systematically driven away smart, interesting people in favor of pathological obsessives capable of spending 5 years fighting over the capital "T" in (T|t)he Beatles. All of this is dictated by incentives. ArbCom cases are the worst example: "You enjoy verbal combat more than editing? Here's a six-month-long steel-cage match against your least favorite editors!" If we changed the incentives, we'd change the community... but I'm pretty sure it's too late for that. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Arbcom. One of my earliest Wikifriends was once a member of that august body. I learned my lesson on that forum long ago. Just recently, my name was mentioned there as someone who should have been listed as a party to a certain pending case. I made a fairly brief statement, removed the page from my watchlist, and absolutely refuse to get involved in the back-and-forth that I'm certain is happening there as I type this. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of my wikifriends also was a member of that august body. Where is he now? I should have done as you described in the infoboxes case, but where would one of our best editors be then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an entire case about INFOBOXES?!? That's just--I don't even know. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was called that name, but was more about ownership, only I didn't understand. The arbs thought some conflicts would go away if only one person was banned. It didn't work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LHM, I think you may have violated 4 corollaries of Godwin's Law there... MC, thanks for the link. I was right, it was just me being an idiot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than removing the material and asserting that it was only on "partisan blogs and websites", you might look further at the talk page. In the discussion there are articles on this from WaPo, Tampa Tribune, Weekly Standard, The Daily Beast (formerly Newsweek) etc. The edit/summary is inaccurate. The WaPo and Daily Beast refs should have been added not the material discarded. I generally agree and fall on the most protective side of BLP discussions, but this is no longer on blogs it is mainstream RS. (The discussion at talk on this is quite active as well.) Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material may be reinserted with proper sourcing (assuming such sourcing exists) after the protection expires, or sooner if consensus is achieved on the talkpage. However, the material that was in the protected version of the article was an obvious and unequivocal WP:BLP violation. Per WP:PREFER, such violations can and should be removed through full protection. It is categorically inappropriate to use low-quality partisan blogs to level defamatory accusations—in Wikipedia's voice and presented as fact—against a living person. Editors who don't get that shouldn't be editing biographical articles. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, yes. I agree defamatory attacks from partisan blogs should not ever be in BLPs, sourced only to blogs the removal was appropriate. I am hoping you are not suggesting that I was in any way proposing that ill-sourced and defamatory material be included. Legitimate criticism found in major mainstream media accounts are another matter. An editor (an admin) had posted a table of the refs for the information several days ago at talk. They included RS mentioned above (although not the WaPo article from today). They Daily Beast ref in particular is defensive of the subject's reputation. That is what I was pointing you towards. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not, by the way, edited the article ever and came to talk by way of the noticeboards. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I would delete the entire thing until consensus can be established for its inclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I will say that I learn something new every day on Wikipedia—in this case, I had no idea that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was such a high-priority target for right-wing types. No doubt more editorial energy will be spent arguing about these allegations than will be spent on covering the Ebola epidemic, because that's how things are done here. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a very small sample of the attacks. Basically, they've been attacking him every day since the rebooted Cosmos aired. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did he make up those "quotes"? The speechwriters say yes he did. The press secretary says yes he did. Therefore I think there's a pretty strong chance that he made up those "quotes". David Newton (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether he made up the quotes, and even less interest in arguing with a bunch of Wikipedians about it. The faux outrage surrounding the subject is a good indication that it's a waste of time. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not appropriate to claim this was a WP:BLP exception to the rule about getting consensus. While blogs are questionable sources, the Weekly Standrd is not. Some people find it partisan, but that does not make it an unreliable source in this context. Please revert.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing through protection without a valid argument is a serious issue. I'll AGF that you think the Weekly Standard doesn't qualify as a reliable source, but I reviewed RSN, and posted the link in the article talk page, so there is little excuse for not knowing. I'll continue to AGF and assume you didn't read the talk page, but please read it, then revert.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the edit in question is here. I view the removed material as a clear WP:BLP violation and an inappropriate use of sources. The material made a factual claim (with the negative and potentially defamatory implication that Tyson had fabricated quotes), but was sourced only to low-quality partisan websites. Those sources are inappropriate to support a factual claim in Wikipedia's voice; they clearly meet the criteria defined in WP:BIASED, and at most could arguably support a claim with in-text attribution (e.g. "according to conservative websites Weekly Standard and The Federalist, there is no evidence that Bush said X").

Whether to include such a claim with in-text attribution now, or whether to look for and prioritize higher-quality independent reliable sources, is a decision that editors will have to make at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. (I prefer the latter approach, but I'm realistic enough to recognize that editors are determined to run with the low-quality partisan sources, BLP or no). In either case, though, one thing that cannot happen is to use low-quality partisan sources for a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Doing so is inappropriate under any circumstances, and particularly so in a BLP article, hence my removal under WP:PREFER. MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the RfC about the inclusion of the incident. More than 30 editors weighed in. Not a single one said, "hold on, why are we debating this, it is an out-and-out BLP violation so it must be removed." None. I see only there people even using the term BLP. One of whom changed a vote because it no longer was a BLP problem. One editor invoked BLP to remind us that we should be cautious when editing a BLP. I concur. One editor said we need strong sources when editing a BLP. I concur. If this was so obviously a BLP violation that it warrants editing through protection, wouldn't some one of the thirty plus editors mentioned it before now? Did you review the RFC? Do you see anyone alleging that Tyson didn't make the claim? Did anyone even hint that Bush meant what Tyson claimed he meant? I've seen hundreds of Wiki-debates over the years, and frankly cannot recall another one where virtually no editor, not even a drive-by IP, was on the other site of the claim. I suggest that if we had a debate about whether the sky is blue, we would have less of a consensus. There is, to be sure, a valid debate about weight, but save your one edit, not a single editor has questioned the underlying incident, which is that Tyson made an error. For that matter, you haven't challenged the facts, you've simply removed a statement that had a blog source and a reliable source. If you want to challenge the blog source, I'm on your side, but you can't throw out the whole things, simply because one of the sources might be dicey.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my request that you revert your edit. Your mere assertion that it is a BLP violation is not supported by the facts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your construction argument fails. We don't use a construction such as "according to liberal websites such as the New York Times." (If my search string is properly formed, that phrase has never been used in a Wikipedia article.) That construction might be valid if we were talking about some extremist publication, but that is not an issue here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be harassing this editor. I suggest you move back to the relevant Talk page. But, you will most likely lose as all sources trace back to one source that has used extremist hyperbole. Just my opinion. And for that, I may find myself ridiculed in the press as the original source is ridiculing numerous Wikipedia editors in the press for disagreeing with his articles. Even comparing Wikipedia editors to beheading jihadists and the crucifixion of Christ. This is not how a reliable resource acts. Again, in my opinion.Objective3000 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick the source where all the rest trace back to is thefederalist.com, which is a joke. What MastCell removed was indeed a BLP violation, the entire mention of this "incident" should go next since it suffers from the same issue: non-notability, not based on WP:RS. Lastly I agree with Objective3000, this discussion should be taking place in the article TP. not here. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: If you're seriously equating the Weekly Standard with the New York Times, then I think I see where the problem is. I think most people can tell the difference between the two; one is a reputable straight-news organization and one is a partisan journal which publishes only ideologically driven opinion and commentary. Now, it may be that the group of editors currently imbroiled in Tysongate is enriched for people who can't tell the difference between these two sources, but that means I have all the more responsibility to act to enforce our standards. When I see WP:BIASED partisan sources as the sole support for a potentially defamatory statement of fact in a BLP, I don't need to look at an RfC (unless I want a rough count of how many editors don't grasp our sourcing standards). MastCell ^Talk 02:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT clearly has a broader scope of coverage, and far richer content when it comes to arts, science and other areas. But in the realm of politics, both are partisan, so yes in that very narrow circumstance, I am comparing (not equating) them. Are you seriously unaware of this? Can you cite the proportion of Republican endorsed by the NYT? I don't have that stat, but I'll bet it is comparable to the proportion of democrats endorsed by the Weekly Standard. But that's a side issue. We aren't here to debate the reliability of the NYT, the issue is the Weekly Standard. And if that is an issue you have to raise it. The publication has been discussed at RSN and accepted. If you would like to raise it again, and a consensus agrees with you, then we can revisit this edit, but until you take that step you have removed a reliable source over protection with no consensus. I request again that you self-revert.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine. The New York Times (NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851. It has won 114 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization. The political spectrum does not end at the US Democratic Party. Where did you find TWS at RSN? I found two discussions, one ambivalent, one clearly against accepting it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the NYT regularly endorses Republicans, including the last two NYC mayors and NYS governor. Objective3000 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: good point, but if I may, I would like to clear up one misconception. The NYT has a historical tendency to act as a supporter of whomever is in power or is likely to be in power. What this means on the national level, is that if there is a Republican in office, the left will complain about the conservative bias of the NYT, whereas if there is a Democratic administration, the right will complain about their leftist bias. There are a few exceptions here and there, but I believe most media scholars have noticed this, and the publishers have said as much. As a result, the NYT is often "late" to the party, since their position makes them highly risk averse. For example, their editorial position on federal cannabis legalization was expressed more than two decades after public opinion, policy, and health science had already solidified. For this reason, namely their close relationship to the slow momentum of the status quo, their editorial opinions are often considered as too little, too late. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling us the "truth", in your mind. But, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Objective3000 (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm opposed to presenting contentious claims as fact in a BLP when those claims are sourced solely to opinion pieces. That's true whether the opinion pieces in question are New York Times editorials or Weekly Standard pieces. The difference between the two, as I think we agree, is that the Times carries quite a bit of high-quality news reporting in addition to its editorials, while the Weekly Standard has no journalistic aspect at all and consists solely of partisan opinion pieces. I will review links to WP:RS/N discussions if you provide them. However, I don't need to look at RS/N to know that potentially defamatory statements of fact about a living person cannot be sourced solely to partisan opinion pieces. That's WP:BLP 101. MastCell ^Talk 15:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we focus on the real issue? You removed three sources. I support the removal of two of them. However, you also removed a Weekly Standard source. That publication has been discussed at RSN. It is an RS, until and unless a consensus of editors concludes otherwise, so the removal of that source was a violation of policy. Please restore it, or I will. Your edit summary rm unequivocal WP:BLP violation per WP:PREFER; a serious and potentially defamatory factual claim (that tyson fabricated quotes) must be properly sourced - that is, not to partisan blogs and websites conflates a valid removal partisan blogs and websites whose removal I support, with no justification for removal of the statement supported by a Reliable Source. If you can provide evidence that the community has deemed it not an RS, please point it out. If you can demonstrate that the sentence is not supported by the RS, please explain. Otherwise, your removal is a violation of policy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick as I pointed out 5 days ago here, both sources being used to reference "No evidence exists that Bush said that", failed verification completely. That includes the unquestionably non-WP:RS thefederalist.com and The Weekly Standard. The third source was, as you said in the TP, a comment in a blog and thus not suitable for inclusion in a WP:BLP. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs)

Sphilbrick, I think you know as well as I that reliability is not a binary attribute. The Weekly Standard is a partisan opinion journal. As such, it is reliable for describing the opinions of its contributors, with proper in-text attribution. It is not reliable for broad statements of fact with potentially defamatory implications against a living person. I removed an instance of the latter. This distinction is covered in WP:RSOPINION and WP:BIASED, and (one would hope) by common sense. I don't believe my action violated policy; in fact, I think these sorts of actions are encouraged by policy. MastCell ^Talk 15:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not accept your assertion. You personally don't get to decide that the Weekly Standard doesn't meet your personal criteria. We have a process for determining this. The Weekly Standard is an RS for this purpose. You are free to bring it up at RSN, but until you get a consensus of editors supporting you, your edit is a violation of policy. Last chance to revert on your own. I don't believe I have ever reverted an admin before, because most admins are willing to follow policy, so this will be new ground for me. I don't take it lightly, which is why I have given you multiple chances to revert yourself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sources are not reliable by default. I have not found anything in the RSN archives to establish the WS as reliable. If you disagree, please give us a link. The RfC about inclusion is ongoing. The conservative approach is to leave potentially damaging material out of BLPs unless there is substantial consensus for inclusion, not the other way round. I fully endorse the deletion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick that would be a gross mistake on your part and I strongly advise you don't proceed with your threat of restoring content that unmistakably fails verification. If the RfC in the TP is clear on keeping this "issue" we can discuss on the wording, until then what is currently up is more than sufficient given the coverage this thing has had.

The original edit introducing the claim you intent to restore was added little over a week ago (refactored after an IP added an entire and obviously WP:UNDUE section the day before) and has been under constant dispute since then with editors reverting back and forth. If anything, and particularly given the very large and heated discussion that has ensued in the TP, the article should be restored to the version before that edit until/if consensus is achieved. Regards Gaba ^(talk) 02:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

← @Sphilbrick: It sounds like your intent is to restore the material unless I comply with your demand to do so myself. I think it would show incredibly poor judgement on your part, for at least two reasons:

1. You would be restoring an unambiguous BLP violation. WP:RSOPINION is quite clear that opinion pieces "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier". The Weekly Standard source is an opinion piece. It is therefore not suitable for statements asserted as fact.
2. Perhaps more importantly: Editing through protection is an administrative action. You are obviously deeply involved in the content dispute in question and as an editor of the article more generally. It would be grossly inappropriate for you to take an administrative action because you're involved.

As a third matter, you've asserted that there is a consensus at WP:RS/N that the Weekly Standard is categorically reliable. I'm not sure exactly which RS/N discussion you have in mind (it would be helpful if you provided a link). I found two such discussions after a quick search: one from early 2010 and one from 2013. In neither case do I see a clear consensus that the Weekly Standard is reliable for statements of fact. (In the former case, there is arguably support for its use to back anodyne, non-contentious facts, but I don't see that precedent as applicable here since we're talking about a contentious and potentially defamatory claim. Also, our overall standards for appropriate BLP editing have tightened dramatically since 2010 so I would caution against relying heavily on that discussion here and now). The more recent discussion seems to come down 2-to-1 against using the Weekly Standard as a reliable source.

If you restore this material through protection, I'm not going to wheel-war with you. But I will immediately take the issue to ArbCom, because your threat to restore a poorly sourced potentially defamatory claim through full protection while deeply involved as an editor of the article in question shows extremely poor judgement. MastCell ^Talk 03:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold off for the moment, pending clarification from you on one point. You asked for a link, which puzzles me. Did you actually revert through protection without looking at the talk page, where I created a decent sized table of resources, an indication of the reliability. and links to RSN discussions?

While WP:RSOPINION is clear about how to handle opinion pieces, some media sources aren't as clear as they could be about identification. Here is the WS TOC. There is a clear demarcation of the editorial section, containing two pieces, neither of which are the piece in question. The source is from the Scrapbook section. Can you point me to the evidence you examined, or already knew about declaring that the Scrapbook should be considered an opinion piece?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, I looked at the talkpage before removing the material in question. I asked for a link to make it easier to review the discussion again here, as a courtesy, and because I wanted to confirm explicitly that we're talking about the same discussion since we clearly interpret it rather differently. I do think it's important to consider the second, more recent RS/N discussion as well, which I hadn't noticed until doing my own search just now. Does it affect your interpretation of the RS/N consensus at all?

As for the Weekly Standard piece... Regardless of whether it's billed as an "editorial", or a "Feature", or a "Scrapbook" (whatever that means), I think it's clear from an actual perusal of its tone and content that it's an opinion piece. You don't think that a serious source—the New York Times, for instance—would publish a piece like that and call it "news", right? More generally, regardless of the headings that the Weekly Standard chooses to use, it is a partisan opinion journal. It publishes opinionated takes on current events, from a well-defined ideological perspective. It does not have a serious journalistic operation or a reputation for independent journalism, so focusing on their perceived demarcation of "Editorials", "Features", "Scrapbooks", etc isn't really to the point.

Since we're doing the loaded-questions thing, I have one for you: do you view yourself as WP:INVOLVED when it comes to the Tyson article? MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Involved. I have only two edits to the article, one to identify a deadlink, the other an administrative action when I reverted an edit by Second Quantization who removed material even while the issue was being actively discussed on talk.(light goes on, I was taken aback by the intensity of SQ's edits in another place, now I understand) That said, I have participated in the talk page. I thought there was an exception for BLP issues - while you invoked BLP to edit through full protection, it is my opinion that your edit created a BLP issue. Prior to your edit, there was a claim and a phrase explaining that the claim was false. IMO, it is so watered down now, it reads as if the claim might be true. That's a BLP issue and should be addressed. INVOLVED obliquely refers to exceptions, but doesn't specific them. I'll have to check.

Your response regarding the Weekly Standard is quite insufficient. Your edit summary ...unequivocal WP:BLP violation ... uses the term "unequivocal" which implies you confirmed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the source was an opinion, not a statement of fact. Now you refer to perusal of its tone and content which means, ironically, that you are relying on your opinion of its status. That's not good enough. It is not labeled opinion, or editorial. There may be other labels which are clear identification of opinion, but you haven't identified that this was an opinion. You keep coming back to your opinion that the Weekly Standard is partisan, which is not relevant, as you must know. I get that you don't like it, but I don't get to remove references just because I do not personally agree with the politics of a source.

I will have to confirm that correctly a BLP violation is an exception to the INVOLVED restriction. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: You may be off the hook. Tyson has admitted be blew it. Now we need to figure out whether a Facebook post works as a source, or if a better source is needed. Frankly, if Tyson apologies and the Planetarium removes the quote from their site, I might support overall removal of the incident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I was ever on the hook, but thanks, I guess. I think the conversation had pretty much run its course, anyway, and we'd reached the soup-spitting phase. I do think you're going to run into serious trouble as an admin if you believe that this is an "administrative edit". I didn't realize until now that you were the one who restored the BLP violation in question, but that explains some of your motivated reasoning here. The idea that you would consider restoring that material as an involved admin speaks very poorly to your judgement, and trying to make an end run around WP:INVOLVED by claiming that BLP somehow mandates presenting poorly-sourced negative claims as fact is even worse.

I'm especially disappointed since I've always had a high opinion of you in the past and unreservedly supported your request for adminship. Here I get the impression that you don't understand WP:BLP and its mandate to err on the side of caution, nor basic sourcing policies, nor the distinction between news and opinion sources, nor the difference between editorial and administrative involvement. I understand you're not likely to give my opinion much consideration, but I would strongly urge you to have someone whom you trust, and whose views you respect, review your actions and posts in this matter and give you offline feedback once the dust has settled, because if this incident is indicative of your approach to adminship then there are going to be more problems down the line. MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm reading up on esophageal cancer with a view to preparing our article for peer-review by an expert chosen by CRUK. May I ask you some questions, as I go? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - just let me know what I can do to help. MastCell ^Talk 14:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :o) So far, so good. I might ask about some undefined terms later today if I haven't resolved them by bedtime. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very committed to making Wikipedia a reliable source - at the least our medical offering. I'm meeting Lila on 30th October to try to persuade her to evangelise for us, to start cajoling experts into taking responsibility for the veracity of Wikipedia.

Jimbo approves of a badge at the top of expert-reviewed articles, pointing to the reviewed revision. Which is good. But he's not an evangelist for this idea. Frankly, he hasn't earned the right to argue for expert-review now, since he's been silent on the issue as long as I've been here. I haven't read the Nupedia epistemology discussions; perhaps that silence is explained there.

I was hoping to have Esophageal cancer ready for expert-review before I arrive in San Francisco - in fact, before I arrive in London in a couple of weeks, but I have good days and bad days. On bad days I can't do that kind of work, and I'm having a lot of those lately. I'll keep working on it, but it could take some time at my present rate.

I don't suppose you'd consider taking on the upgrade, or asking some oncology mates if they'd be interested, would you? If you explain to them their version, once it passes expert review, will be prominently linked to at the top of the current, "dynamic" article, they may be more inclined to chip in. It'll be one of the first five reliable (per WP:RS) Wikipedia articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I keep getting the sense that you're not having much fun. There are all these noticeboards and disputes in your contributions, and not much article editing. What would it take to get you to spend a week away from disputes and admin stuff, and just editing articles? Anthony's suggestion is a good one; you could get a lot done with him and the IP there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right. I dunno. Wikipedia forces us to choose between playing a primarily "editorial" role or a primarily "administrative" role. It takes a lot of effort to do either one well, and I certainly don't have the time, energy, or interest to try actively fill both roles anymore. And I feel like I have a more important role to play on the administrative side. I've been sort of appalled at the level of attrition among clueful, mature, reality-based people here. I'm even more appalled at what passes for serious discussion of meta-issues and project-level dilemmas.

And finally, I've dealt with a lot of tendentious axe-grinders and nonsense-peddlers here, and I recognize the corrosive effect that such people have on the time and goodwill of well-meaning editors. I feel an obligation to deal with problem editors in order to preserve the editing environment for people who actually care about creating a reputable online reference work. And because I've got an admin bit (and a lot of hit points, and a solid armor class) I feel especially responsible for taking on these kinds of cases, because not a lot of other admins can or do. After all, anyone can join and edit, but not many people are in a position to deal with problematic situations from an administrative perspective.

There used to be a group of admins who were smart and had good judgement and could wade into these situations, but their numbers have dwindled to the point that I feel pretty alone in that regard. There really isn't any roadmap for someone like me - I honestly don't know of anyone who's been active as long as I have in editing and adminning primarily controversial topic areas. I've outlived my natural wiki-lifespan. :) I don't think it's as simple as going back to editing articles more, because that's not as fulfilling as it used to be. The people who made this place fun for me are mostly gone, or else they're still here but burnt-out shells of their former wiki-selves. (Present company excluded, of course). :)

That said, I'd be happy to work on the esophageal cancer article. I'm not sure I'll be able to work on it in a timely fashion; I've been contributing fairly little for a while now because of real-life demands. Anthony, I'll follow up with you by email. Thank you both for the notes—they are genuinely appreciated, and it's always good to hear from both of you. MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd miss you—a lot—if you stopped doing admin-y things in the long term. But I think I'd be happy to see you take a vacation from it just for a short, defined period. I think that the same reasons that people recommend real-world vacations apply: a change of scenery, a bit of rest, meeting new people, a chance to explore something new, etc. Please think about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the model Wikipedia is based on is fundamentally flawed. Articles can reach a stage where they are ok, they give some basic information, but they also contain plenty of bias and mistakes from amateurism. Further, the reliance on newspapers as sources of information means the notability criteria is ridiculously low meaning almost anything is notable (and the inherent notability granted to nearly every place in the world); so we have a massive proliferation of article on crud that someone has to maintain, but also all the political nonsense that goes on (ideologues battling each other) wasting time and energy, inserting bias throughout the encyclopedia.

If newspapers were barred as sources, I think most of the drama would disappear. It's much harder to POV push when you are limited to academic and similar sources. The pace of change would be slower, but it'd be steadier. Getting amateurs to write articles leaves articles only gets quality so far, and that's mostly because the editors just regurgitate sources without really understanding them. The only thing useful I actually see Wikipedia bringing to the fore is verificationism, that idea things which can be backed up with evidence should be, even if it's unwieldy and completely over the top. The general quality is poor, but the editors seem content, self satisfied and clearly deluded with how things are. This comment from 2008 is the most egregious example of that: [1]. In general, Wikipedians have actively avoided any associations or contacts with actual experts to improve content. The highest we get to is generally a PhD student, or the odd academic who actually edits under cover.

I know I'm a burnt out shell. I now hope Wikipedia will collapse. I can't imagine Wikipedia existing in 5 years in any reasonable state, at the very least I think quality will have dropped. We can fork the ruins. if the topics of traditional encyclopaedias (albeit in greatly increased number) where forked; the classics and science, and verified identities for editors where used (ideologues and anti-intellectuals not being invited), a more professional and less drama filled encyclopedia would probably exist. Second Quantization (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC) (Formerly IRWolfie-)[reply]

Well WP might be going down the toilet, but the good news is that black holes don't exist, so we've got that going for us at least... a13ean (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... "In a new paper submitted to the non-peer-reviewed online research paper repository ArXiv..." Is this something that physicists can do? Can you really upload a paper to ArXiv in lieu of publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal and have it "count"? Maybe I'm in the wrong field; I'm definitely tired of dealing with both sides of the peer-review process. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the brighter side of things, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Endometrial cancer/archive1 - as we don't treat much of this in my area I am a bit at sea about current thinking, though am familiar with the base cancer template that can be applied to most cancer articles. This is a chance to help 'set' a consensus article anyway.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a second warning on user:AnonymousGANGSTA2568's talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to think about this article. Maybe you have an opinion, possibly that it should be deleted, since I'm not sure about notability. I know about Alex, because I'm in the pro-vaccine, anti-Wakefield world. You're more unbiased, so I'll trust how you move on this one. It reads to me, and I could be off, that Alex's caretakers were just a bit stressed by Alex's behavior. It's almost parrots what I've read on certain anti-vaccine websites. But again, I'm too close to the subject. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Alex Spourdalakis Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From a Wikipedia perspective, I think it should be deleted. The article serves no real encyclopedic purpose and falls under WP:BLP1E. From a personal perspective, it's an incredibly sad story and feel immensely sorry for everyone involved. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis and MastCell: You have both been involved with Factchecker atyourservice at ANI. I would have supported the sanctions on edit-warriors, including him, that MastCell proposed at ANI, which were withdrawn. I've tangled with him before and he doesn't show any signs of willingness to cool down his combative tone and work with others civilly, even though he's been given a "final warning" in a prior ANI by TParis. He's been recently warned of specific, really vile language at User talk:Factchecker atyourservice#Strike it! by me and another editor. My last ANI experience was like the rack (for me), with an embarrassing boomerang, and his latest reply indicates he enjoys another combative forum, so I'm not thrilled about a retry. Any advice is welcome. — Brianhe (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That entire argument is conservatives and liberals throwing crap at each other. I've never seen people so open with their political biases and hatred of the other party before. I wouldn't touch that with a containment suit and a flame thrower. I'd have liberals calling me conservative and conservatives pissed off because they think I'm one of them and not toeing the party line. There are a lot of people that could be blocked and Factchecker is only one of them. I smell an Arbcom case.--v/r - TP

I'm a centrist, TYVM. It just so happens that there are plenty of lefties on WP to fend for themselves, whereas the right-wingers often find themselves alone, outnumbered, and facing unfair arguments or procedures. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]