Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MastCell

Conomination from Durova

I first encountered MastCell during the contentious Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal investigation and arbitration. MastCell impressed me as levelheaded and productive under some tough field conditions there. As a major contributor to two featured articles (acute myeloid leukemia and cholangiocarcinoma) and an active participant at WikiProject Clinical medicine this editor has enough mainspace and project experience to earn my confidence. He's worked on some complex investigations: in addition to the arbitrated case he's uncovered sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cindery and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Regulations. He's expressed an interest in helping the undermanned WP:COIN and WP:SSP boards after getting his toes wet with speedy deletions and page protection requests. I urge fellow Wikipedians to place their trust in him. Durova^Charge! 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Conomination by Samir

Agree that everything that Davidruben and Durova say -- especially with respect to MastCell's exceptional mainspace contributions in medicine -- but I wanted to add that MastCell has shown great poise in dealing with a number of contentious issues on medical articles. Even a cursory look at his user talk archive shows that MastCell has helped settle a number of disputes on medical articles in a fair and levelheaded fashion. More so than anything else, I think the admin buttons will be of benefit to MastCell in helping to fairly settle content disputes -- Samir 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to the nominators for their kind words and trust. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional candidate's statement: Although adminship is, in the grand scheme of things, "not a big deal", nonetheless it requires a level of trust from the community. I'm happy to address any concerns or questions below.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'd intend to start with relatively straightforward things like speedy deletion, expired prods, and requests for page protection, as I'm sure there's a learning curve to administrative actions. Rollback would be handy (but obviously not essential), as I watch a number of oft-vandalized pages. I'd like to keep an eye on Special:Unwatchedpages, as well as checkuser requests (to reduce the lag between a request confiming abusive sockpuppets and finding an admin to block those puppets). I've participated in XfD enough to feel comfortable closing debates, although again I'd prefer to start with more clear-cut cases and work up to contentious ones. Ultimately, I'd like to get involved in some "investigative" work at WP:SSP and/or WP:COIN. Basically, I've noticed an increasing backlog of administrative tasks on Wikipedia as it grows. I'd like to help keep the place clean and running smoothly, and I think at this point the admin tools would be useful to help with that.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Like most people, I initially came here to edit articles, so my proudest contributions are to two featured articles: acute myeloid leukemia and cholangiocarcinoma. Both were fairly stubby when I started out, and in both cases I was the major contributor of content and guided the articles through peer review and FA nomination. I don't own those articles, of course, and they'd never have reached FA status without a lot of input and feedback from other editors, but I do consider my work there to be the best of what I've contributed to Wikipedia.

In general, although Wikipedia doesn't dispense medical advice, I find it has become a significant source of health information, so I try to spend my time in article space improving the accuracy and usefulness of medically related articles. I joined WikiProject Clinical Medicine a while back, and have been an active participant there; I'm proud of some of the collaborative efforts that have come out of that Wikiproject. I've also been gratified by occasions where I've participated in building consensus on contentious topics (e.g. at Talk:Quackwatch back in late 2006), although as is the nature of things, that consensus ultimately splintered again.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Conflict is inevitable on controversial topics, but there are two contretemps which stand out. The first was a series of disputes with the now-banned User:Cindery, initially over article content but ultimately becoming personalized. The second was my (peripheral) participation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal.

The conflict with User:Cindery spilled over into a lengthy thread on AN/I. This was certainly not one of my proudest moments on Wikipedia, but I cite it in the interest of full disclosure, and because it was instructive for me in a number of ways. I appreciated the support I received, both on AN/I and my talk page, but I still wish I had been able to disengage sooner and avoid the lengthy back-and-forth. By way of context, I should mention that User:Cindery was subsequently community-banned for serious ongoing and escalating disruption and harassment. Again, although this is probably the moment on Wikipedia I'd soonest forget all about, I think that some firsthand experience of conflict is actually useful. Admins who have not worked on controversial articles or have never been the targets of vitriol may be slightly less well-equipped to help settle disputes or to deal with attacks when they find themselves in the line of fire. Besides, it's probably useful, when judging an admin candidate, to see how they've comported themselves in such situations.

Both of these conflicts reinforced the need to remain civil and accountable for one's behavior regardless of incivility or provocation from others. In the RfArb case, my take is that one editor was goaded by another into behaving in a way that was counterproductive and which he undoubtedly regrets. In both cases, with 20/20 hindsight one can identify junctures where administrative action could head off the cycle of increasing unpleasantry; this has given me some insight into the uses of admin tools and approaches to conflict resolution here on Wikipedia. Both incidents also demonstrated the importance of remaining cool when things get hot. I think this is doubly important for those entrusted with the tools, as they often take an increased amount of heat by virtue of their administrative functions.

4. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Doc^g 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A: WP:BLP is a vitally important policy, because in addition to harm to the article subject, violations have the potential to seriously damage Wikipedia as a project. It goes without saying I believe in enforcing it rigorously; I think the question regards specific methods. The first line is simply removal of unsourced info and an explanation of the policy, which anyone can do. I would see an admin's role as stepping in when this fails, with an added voice of reason backed up with page protection if an edit war is in progress.

In the case of persistent violators who won't acknowledge the policy or seek consensus, a block to prevent damage to Wikipedia would be appropriate. If I were involved in editing the article, I'd ask an outside admin to intervene to avoid the appearance of blocking/protecting in a content dispute, but that doesn't change the fact that BLP is vital and needs to be vigorously enforced, with a preference, in borderline cases, to "do no harm" to the subject.

Finally, BLP is not necessarily an intuitive policy to a newbie, so ideally we can educate newcomers who violate it, rather than coming down hard right off the bat. However, if push comes to shove, we should prioritize getting the article right and preventing ongoing violations. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

5. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject of the biography has requested deletion, what weight (if any) would you give this information?--Doc^g 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A:

6. If you suspected a user to be a sockpuupet of a blocked or banned user, would you run a checkuser case before blocking them for being a sockpuppet, if the user has made useful contributions?(Provided you would only not block them if the case shows unreleated, and would block them if it came confirmed. I am asking this under the grounds that this suspected sock has not vandalized, not made personal attacks, etc.)--U.S.A. cubed 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A: It's a little difficult to answer that question in the absolute, as it depends on how strong the suspicion of sockpuppetry is. I'd be very hesitant to rely soley or primarily on checkuser; checkuser provides, at best, supplementary and confirmatory evidence (or as Jpgordon wrote, "checkuser is not magic pixie dust"). My preference, in cases where I have a strong suspicion that someone is a sockpuppet, is to request a checkuser - for instance, see my requests here and here. In both cases, I was highly suspicious and went to checkuser for confirmation. If the sockpuppet is obvious enough, however, I'd probably block straightaway on the grounds that this is the course of action specified at WP:RFCU, and because a request to confirm obvious sockpuppetry would probably be rejected by the checkusers anyway. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

7. In relation to vandalism, Larry Sanger has advised:

"show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here."

What do think of the contrast between his advice and the common practice of giving multiple final warnings with no action? -- Fyslee/talk 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A: His advice obviously needs to be tempered by the injunction to be nice to newcomers. However, you're asking specifically about a situation where someone has had multiple warnings (including final warnings). In such a situation, I think it's vital that the warnings are backed up with consequences - otherwise they're ineffective or worse. I think if an explicitly worded final warning (e.g. "Doing X violates our policies. If you do X again, you will be blocked") is ignored, then a block needs to follow. This is a classic preventive block, in that if policies are repeatedly disregarded with impunity and warnings appear toothless, worse disruption is bound to follow.

I would guess this question is in reference to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. I danced around this a bit in my answer to Q3 above, but I'll be more explicit. I think that was a situation where an editor was allowed to disregard numerous warnings (some "final") and elude the consequences (for a variety of reasons), and that much of the unpleasantness might have been avoided with earlier action. I don't say this as a criticism of the involved parties - it's only apparent to me with 20/20 hindsight, and it was a real learning experience for me - but that situation was one of the deciding factors that led me to accept a nomination for adminship. Bottom line: we need to be welcoming to newcomers, but at the same time "final" warnings need to have teeth, or they're worse than useless. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

8. In relation to all types of vandalism, what do you think of the idea of permanently semi-protecting certain types of articles (featured, popular, controversial, and any other articles that are common targets of vandals)? -- Fyslee/talk 06:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A: Indefinite semi-protection is endorsed by WP:PROT for "articles subject to continuous and heavy vandalism." I think it's unfortunate, as it hurts the "anyone can edit" ethic, but probably a necessary evil. I watch pages like HIV and AIDS, and the level of vandalism there would be much harder to deal with without semi-protection. Only about 0.05% of pages are semi-protected at the moment, so I don't see it as a major problem. I'm in favor of avoiding any kind of long-term protection as much as possible, but I see it as a necessary evil for many heavily-vandalized pages. Semi-protecting a wide range of articles based on their status alone (e.g. all featured articles, or all "controversial" articles) seems like overkill, though, and I'd rather see it applied on a case-by-case basis when there's a demonstrated need. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

9. Optional question by Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)

A: My password is 5 characters long, starts with "A", and is a portmanteau of the names of my two favorite Brothers Karamazov. Oops... I've said too much. Seriously though, I work in a field where information security and privacy concerns are taken very seriously, so I can assure you that my password meets all of the above criteria and would not be easily crackable. I've been around long enough to realize that no system is unhackable, and you can never say never, but my password is solid. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See MastCell's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MastCell before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - a good candidate, steps his foot into admin waters and is even an article writer. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - as per my nom David Ruben ^Talk 00:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Ryan beat me to the punch! I like the mature way in which you present yourself. I think you will be a fine addition to the corps of admins. JodyB _talk 00:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

   Maybe next time :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Support, looks good. --Spike Wilbury 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Good record, no worries. TimVickers 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, has need for the tools and can be trusted to use them. A great user who handles conflicts well. *Cremepuff222* 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Very good user to become an admin. Captain panda 01:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Good work on many medically-related articles keeping minority POVs from dominating the article. DGG 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support all looks good to me. Acalamari 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - Outstanding contributor with well-balanced and thoughtful community interactions. Mop-hood is long overdue. -- MarcoTolo 01:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support as co-nom -- Samir 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support by all means. MoodyGroove 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
13. Support. Do good with the mop! Abeg92contribs 13:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. Candidate seems to be perfectly prepared for the job. —AldeBaer 04:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. I've seen their work from my involvement at WP:CLINMED. They do good work and will make a fine admin. Nephron  T|C 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support--MONGO 06:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Looks clean. Sr13 (T|C) 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support I see no problems with this editor becoming an admin. (aeropagitica) 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Terence 10:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - Good Enough to be an Admin and very experienced with acute understanding of all wikipedia policies..Would be an Asset as an admin..--Cometstyles 13:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support quite impressive. Should make an excellent admin. —Anas ^talk? 13:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Calm, level-headed, and competent. Joyous! | Talk 14:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. A good editor who will be a good admin semper fictilis 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - very calm and level headed. Addhoc 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Contributions over Wikipedia namespace is low but, I'm sure he'll take care that later. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - no concerns with this candidate at this time. -- Nick ^t 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Joe I 18:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - Strong candidate and well experienced, I have no concerns on giving him the tools. Camaron1 | Chris 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Single-handedly propelled several articles to FA (AML and cholangiocarcinoma. Undaunted by controversial topics. Needs the mop and some anti-burnout pills! JFW | T@lk 21:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support: Excellent edit summary usage, plenty of experience, and user seems very civil. User should make a fine administrator.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 22:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support John254 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Hike! --Infrangible 01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Yes, you've mastered BLP.--Doc^g 02:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Good answers. You have an unsual subject of expertise, keep editing! Assasin Joe 03:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Yeah...let's make it happen. Good editor. Going to be a great admin. Jmlk17 06:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support per nominations, answers, and good overall record. No concerns. Newyorkbrad 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Good editor with nice percentage of mainspace edits out of total. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Support calm, even-tempered, knowledgeable. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. An admirable junk fighter-- we need all we can enlist. alteripse 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Valuable work on medical articles and plenty of experience in dealing with conflicts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Support--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Has been a more experienced fellow contributor with me on several pages, and has taught me (by example) a great deal about the collaborative process and conflict resolution on Wikipedia. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Support I've always had good interactions with mastCell. he always works hard to find a middle ground in controversial articles. Even under stress wth Cindrey this user kept his cool, really impressive considering what happened. Clearly this user has the right temperment to be an admin. David D. (Talk) 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Lots of good edits, always reasonable. Dlodge 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support I've seen him around and been impressed, and I like the answers to the questions above. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. I haven't directly interacted with the candidate (to my recollection), but his contributions history speaks for itself. The answers to the questions are exceptional and suggest a reasonable, intelligent, and diplomatic person. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Support. Excellent handling of contentious and generally adversarial health topics. Tearlach 13:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. Level-headed and an excellent contributor. --David Iberri (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

51. Support. "But isn't he already an admin?" About time -- he's a model editor and he'll no doubt be equally conscientious as an admin. Raymond Arritt 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
52. Oppose. Not enough Table talk: edits. No, in an all seriousness, great candidate. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Has made solid contributions. Andrew73 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Great editor. Will be an asset as an admin. — Scientizzle 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Support per (co)noms. AvB ÷ talk 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. I've been on both sides of disputes with MastCell. He/she always earns my respect regardless. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Support. per noms and other supporters above who have worked with MastCell on medical topics. --Aude (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Support MastCell is a knowledgeable editor who has contributed significantly to medically-related topics. He is calm, reasonable, and always maintains his cool — assets for any admin. -Severa (!!!) 04:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Support. MastCell is an excellent editor with great admin potential. -- Fyslee/talk 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
60. Support - Great editor - articles and pre-admin work. Cheers!--VS ^talk 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
61. Support per noms. PeaceNT 16:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
62. Support, sure why not.--Wizardman 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
63. Support, a bit tardy for a conominator. I've been offline for several days. Glad to see this is going well, MastCell. Durova^Charge! 02:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
64. Support per noms. Sarah 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
65. Pile on support per answers, impressive noms, Arrested Development fandom. · jersyko talk 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Wow... one of those rare cases where a userbox has a positive impact on an RfA. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

66. Support nothing's wrong here. Go for it. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
67. Support --Uthbrian (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. ElinorD (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Now changed to neutralwrong sockpuppet accusation, I can't support until MastCell explain his action toward User:Regulations. User:Regulations certainly has a libertarian POV, and MastCell says he's a sockpuppet of another banned editor User:Billy Ego (who had a fascist POV). For the mysterious reason MastCell thought they were the same person. I'm pretty sure they two are just in the same city and mistakenly thought to be socks. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

   Please look at the situation a little more closely: I didn't make that sockpuppet determination. ArbCom did. See the ArbCom decision, in which User:Regulations was identified and blocked by ArbCom as a sockpuppet of User:Billy Ego. I had nothing to do with that decision. Shortly thereafter, sockpuppets galore of Regulations began appearing, making threats to continue disrupting Wikipedia by use of sockpuppets and open proxies. Realistically, I've seen stranger things than someone maintaining a few single-purpose sockpuppets to represent different political POV's. Regardless, if an checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of an ArbCom-banned user shows up, disrupts Wikipedia, and threatens further disruption, I'd block the account. Would you suggest handling it differently? MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

   I've see the checkuser, and I believe blocking of disruptive sockpuppets is necessary. However, this case is a little different. First of all, checkuser isn't 100% right, sometimes dynamic IP address can be tricky (in the times when I was using the old internet service editing anonymously there are often vandalism warnings though I don't vandalize Wikipedia). Secondly, when Regulations made the message in the talk page of this RFA page, I went through Billy Ego and Regulation's contribution history, they edit completely different pages with the styles that are nowhere similar, and actually Regulations have many good edits regarding to the wrongdoings of FDA, I see no reason to pursue someone who merely ends up in the same ISP in the same geographical area to a vandal. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough; I understand your rationale, though I don't agree with it. The best approach, if you or User:Regulations believe an injustice has taken place, would be to appeal to ArbCom (who determined he was a sock in the first place), to the checkuser who confirmed his further sockpuppetry (if the concern is IP overlap), or to the admins who blocked his sock accounts. I'm not in any of those roles, so if his goal is to return to editing Wikipedia constructively, then following me around making comments like these (, ) is unlikely to accomplish it. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. That editor's attitude and comments make him worthy of permanent banning, regardless of POV. A threatening and uncollaborative attitude violates the essence of NPOV and consensus editing. -- Fyslee/talk 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for your explanation MastCell, I can now understand your actions, and have changed my !vote to neutral. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Well I'll trust Jpgordon's quote. There is some reason for that answer, such as a situation with Cplot, it would apply. (User:HowOftenHalve for example) But our perspectives on obvious may differ. I'm afriad what's obvious to you may not be to others, in your answer. What you view as an obvious sock may not be obvious to everyone else.--U. S. A. 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   That's absolutely true. I suppose one of the reasons for this process is to determine whether you trust me to make a judgement call about what constitutes an "obvious" sockpuppet, and to be willing to reverse myself if I make a mistake. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2. I initially !voted oppose, but per his explanations I see his actions were understandable, so change to neutral. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you initially !voted Support, then Oppose, and now Neutral. I think that's a trifecta. -- MarcoTolo 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.