User talk:Doc glasgow/Dec 07

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. But I think I'll pass.--Doc^g 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses

Hi, I just noticed that you left me a warning. I had undone your previous edit, which I assumed was vandalism; because you deleted all of the links to well documented pages of clerical abuse. For instance, you deleted links to the pages for John Geoghan whose page has references from the New York Times and Boston Globe. The reason that there aren't direct references on the page is because it was originally a part of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases entry. I would appreciate it if you would review this and add a statement beneath your warning on my talk page stating that your warning was due to a misunderstanding. Mrbusta (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no mistake on my part. I removed unreferenced material from the article as per policy - and clearly marked what I was doing in my edit summary and in an explanatory note on the talk page. If you ignored both of those notes and chose instead to "assumed vandalism", that's hardly my fault (please read the policy on assuming good faith). You reverted me without discussion, which in the case of WP:BLP removals is not permitted. Rather than immediately block you, I served you with a warning. It may well be that you have misunderstood, but I could not certify that.--Doc^g 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries

It's a good point that too many eager beavers forget - "why is the IP upset with this text?". Neil ☎ 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Articles

I was wondering why you delete articles about people working in professional capacities in let's say the film industry, because of them not being notable enough, but yet the site has many articles about porn stars, who aren't even really famous of infamous. This is in regards to your recent deletion of my collegue Giovanni Igneri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me Artie (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid wikipedia is not consistent.--Doc^g 20:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Meraloma Club

There are thousands of entries for athletic clubs in Wiki. There is an entry for a much younger club at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Rugby_Club

What is going on here?

70.70.24.221 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Frank LaGrotta

I'm just curious why you deleted the criminal charges section of Frank LaGrotta because of the status of the Beaver County Times. What's wrong with a local newspaper, as long as it's independent of the subject? It seems by your criteria that no local paper would be sufficient, just big ones. Surely there's no need to revert back and forth on this, so I've reposted this with a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source, but I'd like you to reconsider your criteria or characterisation. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Meraloma

James

Any idea why deletion was recommended for the Meraloma Club as a wiki entry...

"LOCAL SPORTS CLUB" does not seem like a good reason...

More Talk:Courtney Love

Any idea what this was all about? I blocked Chickpeafacelickscourtney due to the similarly between them and Chickpeaface and rolled the page back. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A re-incarnation of an abusive conspiracy theorist nut I booted last week for BLP violations. Doesn't need checkuser to tell me this is User:Cobaincase. My advice? Keep blocking.--Doc^g 10:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed an odd edit they made to their user page and then looked at the discussion. Don't normally see the Courtney Love article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 69.108.139.127 is the same user. He left this on my talk page. Xuchilbara (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Same or not, looks like a nasty troll. Best revert and ignore. I'd block the IP, but it looks very dynamic - if there's anything I can usefully do to help let me know. But if you simply remove the messages without comment, the troll will get bored.--Doc^g 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Would you mind having a look at what's being said on the talk page today? Thank you! Chickpeaface 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

I saw John and your posts on my talk page at 23:17, 28 November 2007, stopped posting, and logged off as I had some pressing business. I was responsive to requests by various people to stop. I wasn't aware I that you or anyone else was requesting some additional response as well. Your 23:19 block of me was two minutes after I stopped and logged off. Doc, why didn't you check my contributions before blocking me? Your block was wrong and you owe me an apology. -- Jreferee t/c 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I did check your contributions - maybe there was 69 seconds between my last refresh of your contributions loading and my finishing deciding on the duration of the block and what to write in the block summary. Sorry for that delay. --Doc^g 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Your looking at the block template brings our actions closer in time than the two minutes makes it appear - a reasonable explanation. In hindsight, there were better ways go about my actions. Sorry for the anxiety. Best. -- Jreferee t/c 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I also reported my block on ANI, and there was no criticism.--Doc^g 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I genuinely regret this whole thing. No hard feelings on my part.--Doc^g 01:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I regret the spamming and causing concern for my actions in other admins. I don't think I've ever done that before (at least not as an admin). When my concept and implementation of "a good idea" overlooks obvious concerns, I likely do need a break as was mentioned in the ANI. I did found it odd being on the receiving end of the checkuser portion of that ANI discussion. I'll certainly be a better admin because of it. -- Jreferee t/c 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser stuff was just the usual paranoid lunacy.--Doc^g 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Burge

You should have a look at this article again - the problematic material was simply re-added wholesale, with demands for a line by line critique. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word on the image

but I linked it internally from the wikipage, so ??? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is copyrighted. It is being used on an article under a "fair use" claim. See WP:FUC. That claim cannot extend to userspace. Policy (and law) is clear here.--Doc^g 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware, and thanks for fixing it. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wormshill

Why the objection to the image? What harm does it do? Dick G 13:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe (and I could be mistaken) it violates our copyright policies. It isn't a matter of harm.--Doc^g 13:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, harm was perhaps an emotive term. I'd hope that a photo taken over 100 years ago and used for illustrative purposes would count as fair use and generally be unobjectionable. For the sake of clarity I'll make specific reference in the article to give it a better context. I cannot see that a modern image of the same spot would serve the same purpose. The picture is illustrative of a point in time - the early 20th century - and indicates (a) the rural nature of the village at that time and (b) a specific building that still exists. The fair use rationale on the image description page expands on those points. Further, I understand there is an accepted fair use rationale for historical images of buildings. The article has been reviewed by several experienced editors and none thought it necessary to delete the photo, in particular the GA reviewer and on that basis I shall restore it. If you still object to its inclusion, I invite you to raise it on the Talk page and seek a consensus from the community before deleting. As an aside, from what I can tell from the reams of (mostly scare-mongering) policy and guidance on copyright, the basis is to avoid legal challenges to wikipedia. It is extremely unlikely that the copyright holder, if there even is one in this case, would challenge the right to use the photo and, moreover, any such challenge could be addressed at the time by prompt removal. I appreciate it's just my opinion, however the US-bias of wikipedia and the paranoia about litigation is stifling the use of perfectly acceptable images. Dick G 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I will remove it again. You are confusing certain things. If it is 100 years old, it may not be copyright. You'd need to ask someone about that. If it isn't copyrighted, and the image page makes that clear - then you can do what you want with it. However, if it is copyrighted, you can't. That's policy. A "fair-use" claim would not be valid here under wikipedia's policies as the image is clearly replaceable and not the subject of discussion. If you want to keep the image there, you will need to change the liencing status of the image page.--Doc^g 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for my own benefit, perhaps you could expand on (a) how an image of a village indicating an obvious late 19th century or early 20th century scene is replaceable and (b) how a "fair-use" claim would not be valid. The photo clearly depicts a non-reproducible historic event, no free alternative exists or can be created and the image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright. I'd like to see more consensus on the point rather than a single editor's interpretation of policy Dick G 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Picture has been scanned from a newspaper article" Well, from what newspaper, published when? If it's from a document published before 1923 then it's in the public domain and you're good to go. There are also other circumstances under which it could be in the public domain but you have to tell us something more about the source if we are to figure out. Haukur 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If its pd, which it may well be - its fine. If its copyrighted it is not. Fair use would not apply.--Doc^g 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't said why fair use is not applicable. What else is fair use for if it's not an exception to the copyright rule? Dick G 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::(discussion concluded amicably on article talk page)--Doc^g 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have looked into the relevant PD tags and am confident the image falls within {{PD-old-70}}. As a courtesy I thought I'd let you know before I restore it to the article. Please let me know if you have any comment. Cheers Dick G (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaukat Aziz vandalism

As an admin, are you able to block 134.34.16.39 from continuing to label Shaukat Aziz as the Economic Hitman of Pakistan?

He's already been blocked. Let me know if it reoccurs. --Doc^g 14:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick Sun article

are you able to undo escape orbit's repeated reverse-vandalism of this page? whilst i'm sure he's acting under the best intentions, the edits he's reverting are actually correct and valid (as unlikely as they may seem). Nick was actually my brother and I can verify everything upon request. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.42.51 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have anything valid, post it on the talk page of the article. However, you will need to verify it from published secondary sources. Even if your unlikely claim were true, personal testimony is not an acceptable authority on wikipedia.--Doc^g 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of User:R/EFD

Quote: "01:30, December 3, 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:R/EFD" ‎ (: Speedy deleted per (CSD G10), was a attack page intented to disparage its subject. using TW)"... Really??? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

deletion review initiated. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What the f***?--Doc^g 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh* While I understand the user whose userspace it's under has not agreed to its deletion, speedily deleting it as an attack page was just silly. Most of the subject involved took part in it poking a little fun at themselves, there were no evil intent involved. Also, a page shouldn't be speedied when it had gone with XFD and survived. KTC 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cliquetyclack

I see you were kind enough to revert that vandalism. (sorry, for technical reasons I can't give you the diff) Both of that user's edits have included vandalism of my edits. Would you have any suggestions as to how to best address this? Hesitant as I always am to use the word, this does look like a "trolling" account. Thanks. Risker 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a trolling sock, no need to hesitate there. I've blocked it already. A checkuser has confirmed that the IP is probably dynamic, so there's not much else to be done. Let me know if I can help further.--Doc^g 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I am usually pretty good at ignoring this kind of behaviour, but having one's own edits trashed is just too far over the line. Risker 18:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cliquityclack is back, and his first action was to modify my edit again[1]. Risker (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Um... "Best candidate yet"?? While I am deeply flattered, I am also in complete disagreement! :) Still the fact that there is such a number of truly excellent candidates means WP is in good shape. Still I appreciated and got a chuckle from your comment. Kind regards Manning (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a small number of truly excellent candidates - but you are certainly up there in my book. Good luck.--Doc^g 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

clarification

You have said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, so I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I'm sorry of my careless comments on IRC have led you to that conclusion. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My complaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying. You should not make that allegation unless you can provide evidence.--Doc^g 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your words were, "jwales: you really /should/ review this vile thread. In which JamesF is accused of being a liar by slimvirgin. The thread is blatantly libellous and involves senior wikipedians. But make up your own mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...little_footnote". Now, I interpreted the word "libel" as lying. I just looked it up the word libel, and it doesn't quite mean lying, although it's close [2]. So, I apologize for mischaracterizing your remarks. I'll post this to Jimbo's talk page also to make sure there's no misunderstanding of exactly what you said. Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. My words on IRC were fastly typed and badly phrased - sorry. It's best not to use IRC transcripts to understand what someone is saying - you could have asked me. What I meant to say is that very serious allegations were being made, which *if* untrue could amount to defamation. The "vileness" was in the heated tempers and inappropriate remarks being made by a number of users in that thread. That's what I did say on the talk page of the thread in question. Perhaps, next time ask me for clarification. Sorry if my words caused false impression - I offer an apology to you and to SlimVirgin. My punishment for loose talk will be a self-imposed ban from #wikipedia.--Doc^g 12:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-ban for what reason? Because it came out that you have an opinion about the character of a discussion that you found distasteful, primarily because of the bad-faith allegations coming from one particular Wikipedian against someone that you believe didn't deserve to be accused in that way? In this particular discussion I've had to apologize twice, to you and to SlimVirgin, because I didn't have my facts completely straight. I apologized and I'm continuing on, because I believe there's a bigger issue here that Jimbo needs to help resolve. The way you stepped-in and cooled down the thread in question on the arbitration talk page was exemplary, and Wikipedia will be the worse if you're not around the next time. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You are a good man. Risker (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ's deletion of my comment should be reverted

Doc, I am trying to exhaust my administrative remedies with the so-called "community" prior to arriving at a situation that I believe will be actionable with the Foundation. JoshuaZ deleted this good-faith comment of mine on the WP:DRV page and blocked my IP. His actions are not too smart. Here is the statement that he deleted:

I appreciate Doc's efforts to solve the problems I mentioned on the WP:BLP/Noticeboard on December 1. In the event that the redirect deletion currently under consideration here results in the restoration of the Daniel_Brandt redirect, I plan to petition the Foundation to install a change in the Wikipedia software.

When Wikipedia deletes a page, the software does not return a 404 "not found" in the headers. And when it redirects a page, it does not return a 301 or 302 "redirect" in the headers. In both cases it still returns a 200 "OK" in the headers. In the first case the little page says that a file does not exist by this name. In the second case, the file is the complete page of the target to which it was redirected.

In terms of search engine behavior, the reason why a deleted page quickly wipes out the search engine juice that previously built up for that page, is because a single one-line header is added to that page: meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow". On the redirected page, this header is absent.

I contend that this is a programming error that violates my privacy. The proper way to handle a redirect on Wikipedia is to use a five second refresh to the target page, with a note on the instant page that it will be redirected in a few seconds, and if it doesn't, then click on this new URL. Then at the same time, you can include the "noindex,nofollow" in the headers. The effect of this would be to deny search-engine juice to the target page, for any and all juice that built up for the instant page before the redirect was installed. The juice for the target page will have to be derived on the basis of its own independent merits.

Since this is a matter of correcting a programming bug that has privacy implications, I will request that the Foundation instruct their employee software developers to install this change. I feel that in this situation, there is little chance that the Foundation can presume Section 230 immunity as an excuse to ignore my request. —Daniel Brandt

I'm afraid that an understanding of the software issues is beyond my limited expertise. Regretfully, I've taken other matters as far as I am able - seemingly unsuccessfully. Other than drawing this post to the attention of others, that's nothing more I can realistically do here.--Doc^g 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Above edits

I've noticed Brandt's comment above and that you did not erase it but instead responded. Brandt is banned, and per WP:BAN is not allowed to make any edits to Wikipedia. The fact that the above contains yet another gratuitous legal threat from Brandt only makes it more egregious. Furthermore, your pointing to his edit in the comments section may run afoul of Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users. I am strongly inclined to remove the above section per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits and am only not doing so because a) it is possible that it might increase drama and b) out of courtesy to you. How you wish to deal with this I leave up to you for now. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Brandt made another comment on this page. I've blocked the IP address and have taken the liberty of semi-protecting your talk page. The more recent comment (visible in your talk page history) did not even have the semblance of being at all useful. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And I reverted an attempt to give Brandt a chance to evade his block. Let's stop acting as facilitators for shamless self-promoting trolling.--Cberlet (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, facilitating block evasion is (a) disruptive, and (b) utterly contrary to community policy, and will be treated as such. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've left a warning for Viridae at his talk page to that effect. Enabling disruptive banned editors further their disruption is far, far beyond the pale. I've been noticing a pattern of this developing around several there. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP>than removing posts from banned users, my rational for reverting the removal is on my talk page. Viridae^Talk 06:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about Brandt's post on Doc's user page and I'm not necessarily trying to make a point here, but, if Brandt doesn't have an account, then he can't access the "E-mail this user" function. So, how is he supposed to contact Doc except to post a note on his talk page? Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Brandt may be banned from participating in wikipedia. However, I view it essential that the subject of a BLP has a right of comment on articles directly concerning him - providing they are rational and constructive. Please do not remove posts from my talk page. I see nothing in the policies that are pointed to above that justifies this. WP:BAN states: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. 1) I have NOT taken and will NOT take 'direction' from any user. 2) I can confirm that "the changes are verifiable and [I] have independent reasons for making them". OK.--Doc^g 09:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of months ago, Everyking had a week long block handed to him for restoring a comment made to his talk page. I don't think that was a good block and I don't think blocking Doc or Viridae over this would be helpful either. Haukur (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever would be the justification for blocking either of us.--Doc^g 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Per this: Assisting a banned user in evading his ban was the reason given for the block. spryde | talk 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not doing that. I suppose if you think otherwise then you really ought to block me.--Doc^g 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Have a block. Since you have a block on your user page for this sort of thing already, and it didn't seem to make a sufficient impression, I feel it's justified to make this one larger. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, since I think it's justified, I've added it to my block log--Doc^g 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement re Daniel Brandt's posts

There is no 'right' to edit wikipedia. Editing is a privilege - and the community or arbcom is entitled to remove that privilege from people who it deems (rightly or wrongly) have abused it. Brandt as a 'banned user' has had his editorial participation privileges removed - that's certain. Any atempt by him to act as an editorial participant in wikipedia should be blocked, and his contributions removed. However, any member of the public who is directly affected by our articles MUST have the right to correspond directly with the community, in regards to those articles. It will be said that the subject can contact the Foundation or OTRS via e-mail, but that will really not do. Under s230, the Foundation eschew any control over the content of articles - content is controlled by the community, and the community defends that right vigorously. You can't have it both ways: you can't say the community is responsible for content, but someone affected by that content cannot correspond with the community. That's simply a denial of natural justice. And OTRS is not a method whereby an individual can correspond with the community; unless OTRS ops are going to pass on messages by posting them in a public place when the subject asks.

Look people don't like Brandt, and probably with good cause. However, when I was doing OTRS I responded to e-mails from racists, convicted paedophiles, neo-nazis and a host of other people who made my skin crawl. I did so because my moral disapproval is beside the point, any subject has a right for concerns to be heard.--Doc^g 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I also regularly interview neonazis and antisemites, and have a broad civil liberties interpretation of the First Amendment. But the Internet is a big open space. Certainly you have the absolute right to correspond with Brandt, and he has an absolute right to post self-aggrandizing garbage on his various websites and malign Wikipedia. But at some point we need to pay attention to the fact that anti-Wikipedia trolls are being assisted (often unwittingly) by editors and admins here on Wikipedia. They are tying up entries and discussion pages with endless pointeless disputes. The outcome of this facilitation of trolling is damaging Wikipeida. You have a right to set up your own website and have long fascinating conversations with Brandt and other destructive trolls. But as part of a community under attack, I have an obligation to ask you to not allow your discussion page to be used as part of a campaign that is damagaing Wikipedia. I appreciate your attempt to find a balance here, but please consider the larger picture and your role in it.--Cberlet (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the 'wider picture,' and you misunderstand what I'm saying. I have no interest in facilitating free speech at all. And I have little or none in corresponding personally with Brandt. I merely affirm the right of the subject of an article to comment and raise concerns in regard to that article, with the community that is responsible for the article. Can you suggest another venue where the subject can raise concerns about the article with the community? Of course trolling, attacks and harassment should be removed - but this post was none of that.

Looking at the 'wider picture', I find the whole language of "under attack" and 'them against us' is precisely the sort of siege mentality and paranoia that's dragging this project down. People exchange common sense and the ability to respond on a case-by-case basis for barricades and banhammers - to the detriment of everyone. That I think is the root of the problem here.--Doc^g 15:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Would it not be within policy for Brandt to create a registered account, enable its e-mail feature, and use it for e-mail and watchlisting only without actually editing from it? That would allow him to correspond with Wikipedians without placing people like Doc glasgow in a difficult position. Durova^Charge! 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Like the above you miss the point. Subjects of articles need to communicate concerns to the community as a whole, as it is the community that controls article content. Just imagine what would happen if I edited an article saying "per a private e-mail from a banned user, which I am not free to disclose"?--Doc^g 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

Hi. :o --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi.--Doc^g 08:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you do? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Megan Meier suicide controversy

I saw you deleted some edits related to this from other articles; would you mind checking out the talk page? Specifically the conversation at the end between myself, Moonridden, and Whisper? Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have opined.--Doc^g 09:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP Request

Could you please include your thoughts at the following request for comment: Talk:Peter Yarrow#RfC: Conviction and pardon. Thank you --Jkp212 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen chum

You don't convince me that you're a doctor. Having spent nine years at medical school it pains me to see importers like you giving dangerous advice. Please confirm your qualifications to conduct medicine.

Yours,

Dr. Hazel Bull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.134 (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that MDs are not real doctors. We just call them that to make them feel better. Go get yourself a real PhD and then come back.--Doc^g 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 06:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Paranoia Quote

Your paranoia quote at the top of this page is about the best and most concise statement I've read on the current situation. ATren (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I wrote it while talking to Jimbo on IRC. Wikipedia Review criticised it, so I guessed it must have hit a nail. Maybe I should put it into a userbox for dissemination? --Doc^g 09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you do. ATren (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Contact

I am seeing you for details. Why'd you delete a page that was used for a merge? That raises not a few GFDL issues.

If the reasons are private, we can arrange a better venue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your e-mail is currently disabled :( --Doc^g 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't have a working address at the moment. Can I catch you on AIM or something? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I don't use AIM. (there's always...shhhhhhh, IRC)--Doc^g 22:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll catch you on IRC sometime. I don't even have a client installed on this computer. >_< For the time being, it's a privacy > GFDL issue of some sort? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. He asked nicely for once. It played on google as top hit, and the history was full of all sorts. I thought "who needs this?, the drama has calmed, so let's see if IAR will hold", and it has, so far. Yeah, there's plenty of wonking reasons not to, and GFDL? but, in the end, /shrug/. If anyone gets dramatic over this, I back off.--Doc^g 23:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone hassles you about it, you have my support. I think it's reasonable. (I'm hardly one to criticize IARing in this case, eh?) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I also support this. Prodego ^talk 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? The redirect kept our Wikipedia "article" (actually a redirect) at the top of Google? That kind of raises serious questions about how our redirects can have that effect. I suspect this might be to do with lots of incoming links from external sites pointing at what had been turned into a redirect. If I understand Google rankings correctly, that large number of external links pointing to out page keeps our page up at the top of Google results. So once an article suffers the "Wikipedia effect", the only way to reduce the Google ranking is to delete it? That sucks. Sometimes redirecting is the right solution. Carcharoth (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doc, it came to my attention that you deleted the redirect from that article. This is a direct violation of the GFDL and is a highly controversial behavior. Please discuss this with me in more detail either here or by email. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. I doubt I've much more to say. Seriously, this isn't worth any drama it. Let it go. It is only "highly controversial" if someone decides to make it so. And how does that help? --Doc^g 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Its highly controversial because you made it so by doing it. This violates the GFDL and breaks a general community compromise that was widely endorsed in a DRV (a DRV I disagreed with, but nevertheless respected). There is no policy basis to do this since no material in question is problematic. Even the most broad interpretation of BLP does not support the deletion of redirects. We don't deliberately reduce our page rankings simply because someone demands it. And I can guarantee it won't stop here, because the other Wikipedia pages that mention Daniel Brandt will still have high rankings and he'll never be happy. I strongly suggest you reconsider your deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've undeleted the redirect. If you insist on being Brandt's lackey, I suggest you take the matter to RfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(aec w/Joshua, who has, one supposes, dealt with the issue, at least temporarily) And, of course, there is the most recent AfD and the DRV that (dubiously, IMHO) sustained it, neither of which bore out anything near a consensus for deletion sans redirection. The community very clearly considered whether BLP counseled deletion in view of the request of a (putatively) marginally notable personnage that his article be deleted and determined that deletion without merger and redirection was not in order, at a time, in fact, when the operation of BLP was at its zenith (it is fair, I think, to say that the community have, on the whole, adopted a construction of BLP more measured than that which controlled in, for instance, the Bdj RfAr era), such that it cannot be said that our current BLP practices are more conservative/restrictive than those under which the last AfD and DRV operated. Because "request of subject"/"privacy reasons" are not, where the community has already very thoroughly considered each and where a consensus has clearly emerged, magic words by which one might invoke unilaterally invoke BLP, the proper course of action here would have been to list Daniel Brandt at RfD in order that the community might consider the issue anew (I set aside GFDL concerns because, as I have often undertaken to observe, and as Chick Bowen well notes in MAD, traditional history preservation is not the only means by which we might comply with the GFDL). As Joshua, then, I would urge you to undelete, but I will be happy, should you continue to think undiscussed deletion to have been appropriate, to take the issue to DRV in order that others might weigh in. Joe 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, we are now GFDL compliant here. In future please do not reverse an admin action during a discussion. More talk less haste. All concerns should now have been met.--Doc^g 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, except that the deletion of the redirect is contrary to the result of the most recent AfD. If that AfD had not considered Brandt's request that we not have any article, even a redirect, about him or had been closed consistent with a version of BLP much different from our current version, I suppose speedy/undiscussed deletion of the redirect citing BLP, with discussion to follow thereafter, might be alright (not with me, to be sure, but probably with the community), but here you simply substitute your judgment for that of the community (to-wit, that Brandt's privacy objections do not control here, which decision was not arbitrarily taken, since a redirect serves here to benefit the [searching] reader); any controversy that follows comes from that unilateral act (which was, of course, more haste and less talk) and not from anyone's agitating unnecessarily. Am I correct, then, to gather that you decline to restore the redirect, such that anyone who desires that the redirect be restored should head to DRV? Cheers, Joe 10:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! The closer of the AfD has no difficulties with my action, the GFDL concerns are now met. What, apart from a desire to plonk process and stoke drama would possibly be the benefit of a DRV? I deleted the redirect in the spirit of BLP (as you suggest) and I've met all the concerns raised since.--Doc^g 11:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, since we allknow where this is headed, I've taken it to DRV myself.[3]--Doc^g 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my rash comment. As to my reversal of your deletion, I did not wheel war (single reversion of an admin action) and you made it very clear that you weren't going to discuss it further. In any event, I think your deletion is very unwise and have said so in the DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I was perfectly prepared to discuss the GFDL further - indeed I think I've shown willingness to come and go there. We could have found a way through by discussion and your jump to the tools was unnecessary and rash. Would a day or two of talk hurt you? (PS. according to arbcom reversing without dicussion (which is what you did) IS wheel warring - I know some disagree, but that's what the committee ruled. Anyway, it is on DRV now.--Doc^g 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP protection?

Doc, you started Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Protected and don't seem to be watching it. What are your intentions towards the protection, please?

In a way, that's my frustration with the original argument - the people on the other side of the argument are not only not making any effort to address our concerns, they aren't saying anything at all, just occasionally silently reverting. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I protected to stop edit waring, I, or any uninvolved admin, can unprotect if the waring has stopped. I'm not getting involved in the content myself.--Doc^g 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the warring has clearly stopped. :-) The discussion has also stopped, unfortunately, and there is no sign any consensus has been reached, :-( but there clearly ain't no warring. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions you can make to get people to actually discuss and approach consensus? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Try an RfC? If the warring has stopped, I'll try an unprotect.--Doc^g 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:R/EFD

EFD was a joke, intended to create a friendly atmosphere between users, which, according to the comments posed there, it did. Anytime you see the {{humor}} tag on a page, it's a joke. Nobody ever got deleted. Had it been real, it would've been in the Wikipedia namespace. Please respond on my talk page. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

/shrug/Even it's creator recognised the joke was no longer funny, and some of the content was offensive. But I've no desire to say anything more on this either here or on any other page.--Doc^g 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

message

I'll try to clarify myself. Your opening statement demonstrated a subtle understanding of GDFL copyright. I studied writing in graduate school where a course in related law was required curriculum. Frankly your decision you made to recreate the page history displays a better understanding of copyright than my own knowledge. I was impressed; that angle wouldn't have occurred to me unless I had outside advice. I wondered whether you might have had assistance in arriving at that solution.

A second reason why I conjectured Foundation involvement is Daniel Brandt's long history of legal threats. If I had been in your position I probably would have given the Foundation a heads up in advance of taking any action. Personal experience has something to do with that; I wound up on Hive Mind about six weeks after nominating Mr. Brandt's bio for deletion. Once burned, twice shy. Durova^Charge! 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the first, I and most of the people commenting seem to understand the GFDL, it doesn't take a lawyer. For the second, we regularly receive legal threats (try doing OTRS) I've never contemplated contacting Mike Godwin.--Doc^g 08:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Would you like me to strikethrough? I had no intention to embarrass or antagonize. Durova^Charge! 08:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As you will. I am not embarrassed, I think you simply looked obtuse.--Doc^g 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Per your comment, I blanked the thread. It was not my intention to offend. Durova^Charge! 09:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus

Hi. Could you take a look at the current lead of the Santa Claus article. I have sourced two The New York Times and the London Evening Standard that children primarily believe in Santa Claus. Additionally, there is an MSNBC poll provided showing children believe in Santa. Two "Santa is real" supporters feel this is POV (one removed the "primarily" word as a "weasel word"), and one, User:Jeffpw, found a Canadian marketing survey that showed out of 1000 Canadian adults, 300 believe in Santa and 700 did not. So I added the wording "(and a small number of adults)" with the source. This is now being called POV on my part. We could stand to have some--*ahem*--adult supervision. --David Shankbone 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Halle Berry

I am curious about some of the things you are yanking out of Halle Berry. I am in the middle of doing a WP:GAC review and noticed the changes such as the curious removal of the accident section and information about her pregnancy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Give me a second and I'll stick a note on the talk page.--Doc^g 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask about the pregnancy one. The first link works and confirms the story. The second link went dead. What is wrong about the auto accident item? The passage was sourced reliably and did not stray from it. spryde | talk 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page.--Doc^g 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Beesely closure

I have reverted your closure. The debate has still a few hours to run. Now that's no biggy in itself, but given you've already twice tried to speedy close this, you are not in a neutral position to be the one closing this. It will look like you are over keen to get in first. Please leave it to someone, as yet, uninvolved.--Doc^g 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You reverted me because you felt that I wasn't being neutral? It's day 5. Can you find me even one example in the past of closing a DRV (or XFD for that matter) where we count the minutes? - jc37 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you because you are not neutral here. You've already unsuccessfully tried to to close this debate in its early stages. The minutes are not the issue.--Doc^g 13:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're "forum shopping". But that aside, I allowed my previous speedy closure to be reverted for reasons that had nothing to do with what was in the closure, but because there were concerns that closing early would potentially cause more disruption. The discussion is on the talk page.

As an aside, I look at the top of your page, and am interested as to how you justify this action based on the statement above.

But anyway, I wholly dispute your claim that I am not, and have not been neutral in this, and welcome any dispute resolution discussion regarding this.

As I said at the top, I think you're forum shopping. As such, I intend to undo your reversion. - jc37 13:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm forum shopping? No, I didn't instigate the DRV - nothing to do with me. You are obviously not neutral here and edit waring over the DRV close is really bad. Let's both wait for someone uninvolved.--Doc^g 13:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I wholly dispute the statement that I'm not neutral to the DRV discussion. (And I note from your comments in the discussion that you are in no way neutral to it.) That said, I don't intend to revert this again. I'm just rather stunned at the apparent lack of good faith here. - jc37 13:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be neutral. But the closer must be neutral and be seen to be neutral. Someone who tried (rightly or wrongly) to speedy close a debate twice, is not going to be seen as such. There is no assumptions of faith, good or bad, on my part. That's just as it is. I will live with any result from a previously uninvolved closer.--Doc^g 13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Brandt

Like you, I have a great deal of difficulty becoming too concerned over a redirect. Thanks for the kind word. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP deletions.

Doc, I noticed just now that in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war you were "strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of page" and you have now gone and participated in what amounts to another wheel war (whether or not my undeletion was wheeling warring, your subsequent deletion almost certainly was). I therefore hope that in the future you will not make out of process deletions especially where this matter is concerned. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Check your facts, I have at no time reversed your administrative action. If you only the same was true of you. I hardly think you are in a position to criticise me here.--Doc^g 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So I see that Dmcdevitt did the second deletion. The essential point above stands. You should refrain from engaging in any more out of process deletions especially in regard to this topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no plans to involve myself with that redirect at this time. You should refrain from wheel warring in future, which is always more serious.--Doc^g 17:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And you should be more careful before you hit delete. Your recent quiet attempt to delete Brandt has prompted me to go through and look at other recent deletions you've made. I've noticed that you deleted Gabriel Hudon a well known terrorist despite there being many google hits (And I seem to recall a while back I asked(was it June or July? ) you when dealing with figures to check whether the there were any basic news hits before removing material). Hudon 's activity's recieved a lot of press attention[see here. Now do I need to DRV this or what? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so bloody preachy. You are again quite wrong. That article was not deleted for lack of notability or google hits but because it was a negative biography altogether without sourcing thus failing BLP. You, or anyone else, are welcome to restore it if you make sure all negative claims are immediately sourced. There is not, and never would be, a case for a DRV. You may disagree with my interpretation of policy and what's good for this encyclopedia, but I do not hit delete without good reason (and, yes, no doubt I do make mistakes on occasions - but they are rare, and not here). Whilst you breach the basic rules by reverting without discussion. Begone.--Doc^g 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. As I pointed out to you back in June it takes a matter of seconds to do a basic google search to see if there are reliable sources rather than just hitting the delete button (and then not even letting anyone know that the article has been deleted where they might be able to go and repair it). In any event, I'll have a restored version of the article up shortly. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Shortly? Surely you mean "in a matter of seconds"? :) Haukur (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow Discussion

Would you please rejoin the conversation. Your input would be helpful. David in DC (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI edit

I've had to revert an edit you made to WP:ANI. I don't know what happened, but something went wrong. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Thanks.--Doc^g 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

deletion

Hi, I only just noticed you deleted List of convicted or indicted religious leaders about a month ago. You may not have noticed that it went under for deletion earlier and resulted in no consensus. Regardless, if I recall correctly, most/all of the claims were sourced in the individuals articles and not the page itself. I understand that they should have been sourced in the list as well, but without the history it's hard for someone to add the sources. I'd appreciate if you would restore the article (with all entries removed from the list, if you like) so the history is available for editors to add them back with sources. Thanks RB972 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to source all the entries? I also think listing indicted along with convicted has BLP problems. What about restricting it to actual convictions? --Doc^g 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I will source them if nobody else beats me to it. I'm not convinced it's a BLP problem to have a list of indicted. Several of the indicted either died before they were tried or fled, and I think in those cases that they were or are indicted is particularly relevant. Being on the same page as convicted is probably the wrong way to go about it, though. This was something that was discussed in the AFD. I expect there are others who are interested in discussing this, but until you restore at least part of the article they probably have no idea it's not even there anymore (like I was until recently). RB972 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I can put it in your userspace until the BLP problems are addressed, then you can move it back. But we cannot have a list without each entry cited. As for "indicted" there are two problems 1) they cannot be in the same list as those convicted, lest we give the (libellous) impression that they were convicted. 2) people who are indicted are sometimes subsequently found innocent, or the case collapses as unsubstantiated or tendentious.--Doc^g 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, put it in my userspace and I'll source it and move it back as List of convicted religious leaders. RB972 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All yours.--Doc^g 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Hello, Doc. I'm not sure if you remember me, but I reported a user in the BLP Noticeboard. You blocked this user for a week.
Now, a new account with a very similar name of that user, is editing on the articles I reported and other fews. This new user is adding the same uncited information. The new account is FatChris1.
I'll wait to your response and see if it is necessary to report it as a sucker sockpuppeteer. Reply here, thank you.--Tasc0 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall what this is about, or see what the problem is?--Doc^g 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? You blocked this user so I'm asking you as an admin, how to address this situation. Do you think is necessary to report this as sockpuppetry issue? Or can you handle with the situation?

I linked the thread where you replied saying to blocked this user. I really don't understand your point here.--Tasc0 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Somehow, they archived the thread after I posted it here.

You can see it here. Now I think you may know what I'm talking about.--Tasc0 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No reply?--Tasc0 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, you're not reading this. Okay. Bye.--Tasc0 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk and editors who claim to be vanishing

BTW I completely agree with your assessment on deleting user talk pages- I've been trying to discourage this practice for a while now. A couple weeks ago I removed mention of "right to vanish" from the user page guideline. So far nobody has complained. I think this silly notion of "right to vanish" is way overblown- it should just mean "you can leave any time and nobody will chase you down", but lots of people read it as "if you claim to be leaving, we'll give you a pack of smokes, last meal, and grant all your parting requests." If we tend to ignore people who claim to be leaving instead of fawning all over them, we'll help encourage a reduced-drama environment. Friday (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Especially since some users are simply using it to wipe their wiki-slate.--Doc^g 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

May I ask...

...why you restored Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping after it had been deleted per a CFD discussion? I can find no evidence of a deletion review or any discussion with the closing admin. I might consider the possibility that you discussed it with him off-wiki, but it's unlikely that you would use "nonsense deletion" as your restoration summary had you done that. I would appreciate your clarifications on the matter. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There was obviously no consensus to delete it - and the closing admin keeps making terrible closures. I called him on one yesterday, and this was my payback, I think. It was closed the same time as the silly recall category closure, which was overturned in 20 min on DRV. I suppose I could have gone to DRV, but there seemed little point. You can take it there if you want, but the result is pretty inevitable. Personally, I don't care that much really.--Doc^g 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "obviously no consensus to delete" is an accurate characterisation, given that most of the "keep" comments were simple WP:ILIKEIT votes that failed to answer the key questions of why the category can't be replaced by a simple userpage notice (i.e. why a grouping of users is useful) and how it is different joke categories such as Category:Userpages That Are Full Of LOL (deleted). Also, it just doesn't look good (appearances aren't everything, but they are important) when a joke category for admins is speedily restored after a delete closure, but similar categories for non-admins are consistently deleted and, if recreated, re-deleted per CSD G4.

Your opinion that "the closing admin keeps making terrible closures" is unfair, I think: jc37 tends to close controversial discussions (at CFD and UCFD), which naturally means that many will disagree with his closures. (You may be interested in reading User:Jc37/Sandbox/Closure, which provides a more detailed explanation of the recall category closure.) In any case, his closure of the recall category should have no bearing on his closure of this category.

Would you please re-delete the category – leave it populated if you like – and pursue DRV (and/or discussion with jc37) if you feel that it should exist? I'm not asking this so that process is followed, but rather because: (a) I can honestly see no encyclopedic value in the category, and (b) I can't see how the CFD discussion would justify a "keep" closure, based on the quality of the arguments offered. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the above (as I don't wish to interrupt your discussion), unless requested. I merely want to clarify that in no way shape or form was any closure I have ever made indicative of "payback". After Midnight, Black Falcon, and I (and others, though it varies who and how often. VegaDark has returned, for example) tend to close WP:UCFD discussions. I tend to not close the alma mater discussions, which I believe left only 2 to close. And so I closed them. I suppose one could argue whether I'm a "regular" at closing DRV discussions (I don't believe I am, though I have done so before), but good luck claiming I'm not a regular at WP:UCFD. Personally I'm just tired of being accused of things which I'm not, and which I feel aren't true. I'd like just a little more good faith. Anyway, please feel free to continue your discussion. I was considering re-deleting per G4 (recreation), but I'd rather see what can come of discussion. - jc37 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Aggh. What? Oh, whatever. I created this in a ten seconds to make the useful, non-disruptive, point that admins should hold themselves open to constructive criticism without the nonsense of a recall process. Quite a number of respected admins thought it was valuable and added themselves. Then someone Cfd'd it - without discussing their concerns with me at all. I didn't comment on the cfd, as I didn't really care, and there was never going to be a consensus to delete anyway. Then Jc37 pulls a rather silly closure - with some new idea I don't even understand. The closure was clearly against consensus - and like his closure of the recall category cfd minutes before, would have been overturned on DRV in 10 seconds. I simply got annoyed (my bad) and reversed his nonsense (so trout slap me if I should have gone through the paperwork of a DRV). Now more process wonking? Really I don't care, take it to DRV if you must. (You can't delete it as a G4, since it is not "a recreation of deleted material", but an undeletion. So you can do an IAR re deletion if you want - but that would be out of process and result in you needing troutslapped as hard as me for wheel warring. So do whatever makes you happy.--Doc^g 13:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're essentially presenting me with a fait accompli. You did an out-of-process undeletion without providing any meaningful reason ("nonsense" is not meaningful) and now note that I can't re-delete per CSD G4 without it constituting wheel-warring. ... That's not exactly a prime example of an aversion to process-wonking. Moreover, whereas before we would have needed one deletion review to evaluate the CFD, now we likely need two: one for the invalid speedy undeletion and, if reversed, another for the CFD. Finally, as the original creator of the category, you should not have acted on a judgment about the consensus reached in the discussion. I ask you to reconsider your decision. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly past caring.--Doc^g 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quackery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall involvement in this.--Doc^g 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion, then. You were in the article history but perhaps your edits were minor. —Whig (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Larry Pinkney

You protected the page and referred to OTRS. Is it safe to unprotect the page now, or is there ongoing issues? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't do OTRS anymore. After so many months it probably is safe, but I can't recall the ticket, and I don't have access to OTRS any longer to check. I'll try to someone else to take a look.--Doc^g 07:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

sigh.--Doc^g 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this still going on? I think sighing is justfied now... Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be very unnecessary, and would definitely lead to this being taken to arbcom. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Me sighing and chosing to work on something else will "definitely lead to this being taken to arbcom"? I was the one that originally told Doc that he should stop sighing. Quite why you are responding to my off-topic comment in that vein with some stuff about arbcom, I'm not quite sure. Just to be clear, the above was my way of saying to Doc that I'm sighing and leaving this well alone. What Doc does is up to him. Carcharoth (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've lost track of these, so I can't remember whether I commented or not. However, it is not on my watchlist, and I will not be looking in again. I'm just going to sit in the corner now and sigh, and if anyone wants to poke me with a stick I shall simply sigh louder. ;) --Doc^g 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Carl Hewitt

Doc, would you mind casting an uninvolved eye over something? There has been trouble for a long time on Carl Hewitt, including an ArbCom case, with allegations that he is being harassed by WP, and counter-allegations that someone is using the page to promote him. I'm not familar with the case, so I don't know the details. The article is indefinitely protected as a result of the dispute.

Someone, presumably a Wikipedian, tipped off a freelancer, and the Observer published a brief story on it. Now, people keep posting links to the article on the talk page, and restored it when it's removed. I've therefore protected the talk page on BLP grounds (I'm intending the protection for a short time only), because the article can't be edited, and the Observer piece is too self-referential to be used as a source so there's no need to keep discussing it on talk. Viridae supported the protection, but others are objecting. Some discussion here, but mainly here. If you could give an opinion, it would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this has been dealt with. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chickenology Encyclopedia

Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind telling why?--Doc^g 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shamrock houston.jpg

Thanks for letting me know. This image fits two Wikipedia acceptable use criteria, which are already carefully explained on the image page. The notice gives no acknowledgement that these were even read. I've added a dispute tag. This is acceptable non-free fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so thorough (both times)! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the whole thing. Sloppy on my part.--Doc^g 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany

Easy-peasy! Congratulations! Giano (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And to you for yours. Thanks for the encouragement, I actually enjoyed that. Maybe another soon.--Doc^g 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Beware it can become addictive! Giano (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Do you realize you've reverted three times within a short while? ...oy, and now you've reverted me, too. That's four. You should block yourself for 3RR vio. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

That would be a pity, why not just revert back to last version by me. I don't mind - honestly! Giano (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I've reverted Giano twice and you only once. Bishonen, Giano, please, this isn't helpful. If you have a grievance the fist step is to post a complaint to the channel owners. Of course people should not use such language, but this is not the way to pursue it, and you know it. You are only going to stir up an unhelpful drama. Have you filed a complaint?--Doc^g 14:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I condemn utterly anyone using such language. If this has occurred, and is substantiated, the channel owner should seek assurances that it will not be repeated, and if such are not forthcoming, the culprit should be banned. I suggest you post the logs to JamesF. I'm happy to lobby him to take any required action.--Doc^g 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The channel owners and ops don't care and do nothing. The editorship of this encyclopedia has the right to know how their rulers behave, and exactly what does happen in that channel. You habe been there when these things happen, you know it is true. Giano (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you reported it to them? Yes, I have told people to watch their mouths in that channel (no doubt I've slipped up myself at times), although I do not recall the language you refer to.--Doc^g 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this isn't just a prelude to posting logs to force the privacy issue, that truly would be viewed as pathetic.--Doc^g 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am referiiing to Tony Sidaway repeatedly refrring to a femail admin as a Bastard bitch from hell because he wishes to drive her from the channel. Why exactly is such a person permitted to remain there when he is not an admin - is he useful? Giano (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to post me the logs, I will be happy to take this up with the channel owners personally. I will then be able to say if they take it seriously or not.--Doc^g 15:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no need to post the logs, the channel was full, would you like a list of brave admins who witnessed the attack? - The chanel owners will do nothing! Giano (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted the channel owners, but without substantiation how can they act? Particularly if the accused denies it? Please post the logs to me or to them. Until you have done that, there can be no justification for assuming they will not act.--Doc^g 15:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't ever act. They know full well where the logs are. You yourself were there when the last incident happened, why not forward them yourself? The channel is a disgrace! As the "persom" says in the logs it is a chanel where admins discuss problem users, yet he is allowed to sit in there and listen and comment - why? I repeat is he useful? Giano (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any references to the language you refer to in the logs I have.--Doc^g 15:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems others can and that Tony's acess to the channel has been temporarily removed by User:Mark - let's hope it becomes permanent. Giano (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, repeat is/was he useful? Giano (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to judge that. However, now having seen the logs, I concur that Tony's remarks were inflammatory, and that the channel ops should act to ensure there are no repeats. If that means permanently banning, so be it, but I always prefer reform and redemption. It seems however that your assertion that the ops do nothing has proved, in this particular case, to be premature.--Doc^g 15:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't regard a "temporary ban" after so much head banging totally acceptable do you? It is better than nothing I suppose, assuming one of his cronies has not let him n through the back door by now. Which is what is likely to happen Giano (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bans should be preventative. That takes as long as it takes. I will stand guard at the backdoor.--Doc^g 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't find that language? You have mail. You have the relevant log. In case you, too, assume I'm making it up, please compare it with one of the many logs produced by the many lurkers in the channel. I think Lar logs 24/7, for instance. BTW, I've removed a few lines (nothing of the lightest significance) from the log I sent, trying to make sure your "E-mail this user" function would be able to manage my message; but if you give me your e-mail address, I can replace that log with a pixel-perfect one. And, as distasteful as it is, I can dig out the log of the ancient event being referred to, too--the original "bastard bitch from hell" incident from September 2006. I'd really rather not go into such ancient history, but since I'm accused of lying, I'm prepared to prove I'm not. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

To clarify: I used to log that channel whenever my computer was connected to the internet (most, but not all, the time). But I stopped, several months ago. As it happens, I was logging that channel during part of the time period in question (I had a disconnect at what might have been a crucial point), but I unfortunately was in an other channel working on some other stuff when the incident occurred. I wish that not been the case so I could have spoken out at the time. I reviewed what I have, and I'm not happy with what I saw, but I have an incomplete picture. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the logs now, thanks for sending them. The language is, as you say, unacceptable.--Doc^g 15:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And how many times does the stuff like this have to recur before those still unconvinced realize what Giano, myself and many other have been saying for years. I am not a fan of Cato the Elder but delenda est here applies with an absolute certainty. I've also seen the yesterday's log where the block of Giano was again discussed and implemented. I was, again, taken quite aback. Sigh. Never ends. --Irpen 19:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What is Tony doing at that channel in the first place? What constitutes the entitlement to access? Being liked by Forrester is one. Being an admin is not as admins are kickbanned by non-admins (liked by Forrester) on the whim. So, is there anything but being liked by Forrester in the rules? And, again, what is Tony doing there? --Irpen 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking me this?--Doc^g 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you are on of the channel's sysops. That's why. --Irpen 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that explains your question. However, I am not thankfully in that position.--Doc^g 01:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano II

Hi. I noticed you unblocked Giano 61 minutes after the placement of the original 1 hour/3RR block. I had already reduced the 24 hour block by making it 15 minutes for the original tariff less time served - but erring on the side of caution. Giano's block would have expired at most 5 minutes after you lifted it... :~) I would also comment that I gave notice of my actions to User:Coredesat who was gracious enough to say that they would not contest the reduction, so hopefully your actions will have the same reaction. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, missed that. It was the 24 hour I was removing. A 24 block for unspecified reasons was never going to be helpful.--Doc^g 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Great Minds... and Fools Seldom Differ!" ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Buon Natale e buon anno! Giano (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete/Undelete

I know you had good intentions, what with Christmas truces and stuff, but deleting the page isn't really the way forward. I've undeleted it, even though deleted is really how I'd rather it be. I.e. you give me a victory if you delete it, as I think any website that truly is "not part of Wikipedia" shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia, and anything that we link to from Wikipedia and give the Wikipedia name to ought to function exactly by our rules and policies. However, I don't think that deleting unilaterally is the answer. (Sweeping things under the carpet just makes for a lumpy carpet.) Mind you, I have extremely negative opinions of the page and its owner, but, so long he doesn't go about blocking people, issuing protection, etc., to stop legitimate users from expressing legitimate concerns, that's irrelevant. Geogre (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Stille Nacht, Alles schläft, so I'm neither going to wheel war, or get into a contentious discussion on this. Merry Christmas to you and yours.--Doc^g 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you, too. I suppose it actually is Christmas, there in hyperborea. You should be asleep, lest Santa Claus not come. Geogre (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)