Talk:Douglas R. Docker
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Conflict of Interest
[edit]As stated on the noticeboard, it appears that user Janthana has a personal connection to the subject of this article. He or she has only every made edits to either this page or other pages directly related to Mr Docker. This user did not begin editing in earnest until another user, Rudra555 was permanently banned for engaging in much the same behavior. It should also be noted that the username Janthana happens to also be the first name of Docker's wife. Although this is not evidence that it is indeed his wife making these edits, it definitely calls into question the editor's WP:NPOV. As a result, I added the COI warning to this page as I feel the public has a right to know that this article may contain some bias. AFJP FAN 420 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @AFJP FAN 420: The real question though is, does it contain bias? From the template documentation, "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality". Also from the documentation, "This tag may be removed ... if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page" -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly zzuuzz (talk), that's why I removed it. Please meet AFJP who has been stalking this page for months, fabricated false references, was banned for it, and is only one of the many aliases involved in this trolling campaign I mentioned in the ANI page a while back (see the many absurd comments above from him, him and him under different IPs). May I mention that this article was much longer and well referenced, but I removed more than half of it due to the constant vandalizing and slandering edits. I hope to be able to restore it and improve it, but while this keeps going on there is little point.Janthana (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- A quick look at the history will show that I'm one of the few people making positive contributions to this article, which to be honest was in a terrible state previously. Also, you will notice that I received a temporary ban not for "fabricating false references" but for not sufficiently referencing my claim that the album was received with universal claim (which I fixed ASAP). I think the bias in this article is self-evident. Although I think Docker's current project probably meets WP:GNG, the bulk of the article is devoted to extraneous information that is absolutely not relevant and does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Much of it appears to be copied directly from primary sources backed up by unverifiable Italian newspaper clippings. Janthana indicated that she is in contact with the subject of the article in the previous ANI, and is the one responsible for most of the unnecessary content. Morever, he/she has consistently refused to engage with other editors on his or her talk page when questioned about edits. Therefore, as stated above I believe the COI tag is still warranted. AFJP FAN 420 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- False: "You added a statement of "universal critical acclaim" based on a source that said nothing of the sort: whether or not he has universal critical acclaim, it's a hoax to claim that it comes from this source, as it obviously doesn't. You also attempted to convince other editors that you'd merely found a website that you put together. Deceiving others will not be tolerated, whether it's deceiving readers in articles or deceiving other editors on talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)". I might add, again, that it is you that put that reference on Discogs, being dumb enough to sign it with the same nickname you use here. The article was in great shape, well referenced but your trolling brigade forced me to remove most of it. The neutral sources that you mention (research journals, classical music magazines and other newspapers) are absolutely verifiable if you go to any Italian library or if you have the scans. Which I certainly won't send to you. And you are right, I do not engage with trolls, who are all the same person, that being you. Fortunately, now things are being taken care from above and as you've noticed all troll IPs are being systematically blocked, articles protected and so on. You have no credibility here anymore. Janthana (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- None of that addresses the issue being discussed here, the conflict of interest. If you have a personal problem with my editing you can bring it up on my talk page. The fact is, you have explicitly acknowledged that you are in communication with the subject of this article, and from what I can see the only "constructive" edits you have added are regarding irrelevant, self-promotional material about the article's subject. Even if the references are legitimate, that doesn't address the fact that they are not relevant to the article. That affects the neutrality of this page and the core values of Wikipedia.AFJP FAN 420 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- No. Janthana (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, since you've failed to engage in any meaningful discussion about the topic at hand, I think we can all safely say that the COI header should return. Just as one example, the entire section on Docker's classical music experience reads like a fine CV for a working pianist, but is not really relevant or notable enough to be included on the page in the form that it exists, and it reeks of self-promotion. Although "referenced", it should be noted that "[w]orks consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" are not enough to establish notability. Even when this has been pointed it out to you in the past, you have removed good-faith edits because they apparently don't meet with your vision for this article. I will gladly remove the COI header as soon as this article is properly edited, and you stop your campaign of reverting any edits, no matter the quality or intention, because they conflict with your idea of how this article should be written. As always, I would welcome discussion on how this article can be improved.AFJP FAN 420 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- No. Janthana (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- None of that addresses the issue being discussed here, the conflict of interest. If you have a personal problem with my editing you can bring it up on my talk page. The fact is, you have explicitly acknowledged that you are in communication with the subject of this article, and from what I can see the only "constructive" edits you have added are regarding irrelevant, self-promotional material about the article's subject. Even if the references are legitimate, that doesn't address the fact that they are not relevant to the article. That affects the neutrality of this page and the core values of Wikipedia.AFJP FAN 420 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- False: "You added a statement of "universal critical acclaim" based on a source that said nothing of the sort: whether or not he has universal critical acclaim, it's a hoax to claim that it comes from this source, as it obviously doesn't. You also attempted to convince other editors that you'd merely found a website that you put together. Deceiving others will not be tolerated, whether it's deceiving readers in articles or deceiving other editors on talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)". I might add, again, that it is you that put that reference on Discogs, being dumb enough to sign it with the same nickname you use here. The article was in great shape, well referenced but your trolling brigade forced me to remove most of it. The neutral sources that you mention (research journals, classical music magazines and other newspapers) are absolutely verifiable if you go to any Italian library or if you have the scans. Which I certainly won't send to you. And you are right, I do not engage with trolls, who are all the same person, that being you. Fortunately, now things are being taken care from above and as you've noticed all troll IPs are being systematically blocked, articles protected and so on. You have no credibility here anymore. Janthana (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- A quick look at the history will show that I'm one of the few people making positive contributions to this article, which to be honest was in a terrible state previously. Also, you will notice that I received a temporary ban not for "fabricating false references" but for not sufficiently referencing my claim that the album was received with universal claim (which I fixed ASAP). I think the bias in this article is self-evident. Although I think Docker's current project probably meets WP:GNG, the bulk of the article is devoted to extraneous information that is absolutely not relevant and does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Much of it appears to be copied directly from primary sources backed up by unverifiable Italian newspaper clippings. Janthana indicated that she is in contact with the subject of the article in the previous ANI, and is the one responsible for most of the unnecessary content. Morever, he/she has consistently refused to engage with other editors on his or her talk page when questioned about edits. Therefore, as stated above I believe the COI tag is still warranted. AFJP FAN 420 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly zzuuzz (talk), that's why I removed it. Please meet AFJP who has been stalking this page for months, fabricated false references, was banned for it, and is only one of the many aliases involved in this trolling campaign I mentioned in the ANI page a while back (see the many absurd comments above from him, him and him under different IPs). May I mention that this article was much longer and well referenced, but I removed more than half of it due to the constant vandalizing and slandering edits. I hope to be able to restore it and improve it, but while this keeps going on there is little point.Janthana (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
User:DouglasRDocker has identified himself as the subject of this article, and states that he and his wife (presumably User:Janthana) have been editing this article. That's a clear conflict of interest and should not continue. If they won't do so voluntarily, administrative oversight will be required. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked that account as a likely impersonation troll. Frankly, COI cannot be not credibly disputed - the question, as I keep pointing out, is whether the article content is affected, and if so what to do about it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- With one exception (apparently addressing a BLP violation), every edit made by that account had a content problem (aggrandizing or promoting Mr. Docker). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Vivaldi Metal Project
[edit]It feels like the only reason anybody knows that this gentleman exists is through the Vivaldi Metal Project, which, surprisingly, has no page. I'm going to work on creating one, and thereafter suggest a merge/redirect for Mr. Docker. 50.196.48.211 (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Added a mention of VMP on the main page. Feel free to create a VMP page if you feel the project is noteworthy. Mystic Technocrat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Notability
[edit]This guy only appears notable for being in a non-touring Cheap Trick cover band and for running an entirely unremarkable, for-profit music "school". Almost all the references are either unverifiable or from first-party sources. Would anyone object to AfD'ing this article? 40.128.88.200 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Removing slander and other nonsense
[edit]Douglas R. Docker here. The real one. I'm here to remove any false and slanderous information about myself, my family and my collaborators from both my article and the talk page. Apparently this has been going on for years and it's time to put a stop to it. Not here to promote myself or edit creatively. But this nonsense has to stop, and it will.D. R. Docker (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz: Do you mind taking a look at the remaining talk page sections? I've struck some of them that really run afoul of BLP, but I'm not convinced that the majority of them do. —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)