User talk:Doc glasgow/Apr 07

Philemon (New Testament character)

I'm not comfortable with what you moved the Philemon of Colossae article to, tho I understand your motivation. Besides the fact that "character" in ordinary language implies that Philemon is a fictional person, "character" happens to have a specific meaning in theology. I'm thinking of moving it to Philemon (New Testament person) instead, but since I'd like to avoid a potential revert war over a move and I'm not 100% "comfortable" with person either, I thought I'd ask for your input before so doing. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think character is fine - but I'm OK with person too or perhaps 'figure' - whatever you want. He probably was from Colossae, but since 'his' letter doesn't actually say that, the hypothesis depends on the authenticity of the Colossian epistle, which is not beyond dispute. --Doc^g 22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How about simply "Philemon (New Testament)"? I think it's clear enough without a potentially controversial noun. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I though of that, but that would be confused with the Epistle of Philemon - whilst the article is about the individual and the later legends concerning him. --Doc^g 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

William Bradford (professor) prod

Good idea. We had tried cleaning it last night, but in hindsight, stripped of about everything, doesn't seem worthwhile at all to keep. - Denny 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was very tempted to speedy it as A7. But if the prod fails, it can go for afd.--Doc^g 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you afd it let me know in case I miss it, I'd support dropping it. - Denny 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Ruy Lopez

Doc, would you mind taking a look at [this comment by User:Ruy Lopez? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea about the history on this, but the guy does have form for incivility. I've issued a cease and desist warning.--Doc^g 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, last time you blocked him... Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I was (perhaps over-)cautious here as I don't know the context. And last time I blocked a wikipedian (Giano) for personal attacks hours after the incident, I got egg all over my face and little support. But if he does not heed the warning, be reassured, I will block without hesitation.--Doc^g 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, someone else has blocked him, I'm happy to endorse it.--Doc^g 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the history and the most recent egregious post and decided that a one week block is well warranted, given that he came out of a block for a similar offense just 3 weeks ago.[1] Crum375 20:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Schaap

Ii noticed you deleted Jack Schaap and protected it. It seems Jack Allan Schaap was created by NovumTestamentum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to get around your deletion. Arbustoo 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in Template:DRV top

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Title (closed)

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

Can you tell me which sources of this article you consider unreliable? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to wikilawyer over this. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject.--Doc^g 08:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In light of the above, this would seem most appropriate. >Radiant< 13:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard-hats are always appreciated round here :) --Doc^g 09:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not my soabbox.

You just deleted three reliable sources on the article about teen escort companies. It is not my articles, it is not links to biased organisations. It is genuine articles. One of the even a price winning article.

Regards Aspen Achievement Academy, you just reverted it, so it now contains the word detainee instead of adolecent. Regardless of the fact that former children has confermed that they felt detained in the wilderness, I have accepted that we should be disguising the fact.

What about reading the article instead of just deleting all edits from Europe as biased.

Covergaard 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTRS

Doc, why the apparent defensiveness on this? I'm not indicting the OTRS process, I'm just asking for a review since the deleting admin left on a Wikibreak the same day I started asking about the deletion. Did you look at the original complaint? All I want is some generic policy-based reason why the image was deleted, because it doesn't make sense to me right now. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only an image - I trust Jaranda's judgement on this - forget it. --Doc^g 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Luthra

Why did you revert my edits? My version is the sourced version and you can check the references if you wish proof that Luthra is a Khatri-Arora surname. The version you reverted to is not accurate and is the result of bias. This is the second revert from a seemingly unbiased user I have received today and I am becoming disillusioned with how Wikipedia's admins deal with Wikipedia's policies. Particularly WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Please don't allow lies to make their way through on Wikipedia. You may check the references as to whether Luthra's are Kshatriya or not, if you want more I will give them. Please reply on my talk page. dishant 07:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

replied on talk--Doc^g 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your sincere reply. I agree with your removal of Dumeetha Luthra from the list. dishant 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your change of citation - Baron Adonis

Why did you change the method of citation of this article which was - thanks to IP-Number xxxx introduced recently?

You might not now the recent methods of citation: "Use not direct link!" - as you wish - is not wikipedia style.

You yourself mention WP:MOS where your method can not be found. Instead you find the embedded version which you changed with no reason:

WP:MOS Quotation:

" Embedded links - External links can be embedded in the body of an article to provide specific references. These links have no description other than an automatically generated number. For example:

   Sample text http://www.example.org.

When wikified, the link will appear as:

   Sample text [1].

An embedded external link should be accompanied by a full citation in the article’s References "

You reverted to a POV version which offends against WP:BLP - answered on talk.--Doc^g 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to revert to the POV version because of all the corruption you did to the citation. But as I promised I introduced your POV-changes and some others immediately after that. :-) Please check if you can agree.

No you never 'have to' revert to a POV version. And my changes were not 'corruption' they were standard formating. Yours are a mess.--Doc^g 11:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the entire reference list. Sorry for the use of the word 'corruption'. But proper reference was lost. I do agree to all your POV and I reworked the whole policy section i.e. Political background, Schools minister and peerage. But I fear to delete the sourced media information will support the attempt to neglect the picture of Baron Adonis in the media.

You are right that even sourced negative media criticism can be POV, but - according to WP:BLP - only when representing a minority or being biased. Biased means here that the author tries to give an untrue picture of that biography through the biased selection of the material.

But this applies not to this article. It is definitely true that Baron Adonis is one of the few persons with only very few positive words in media since 1997. And there are many words! Just look through the media. This fact might be due to his high influence on the controversial 5-billion-Pound project and its unloved effect on hidden selection and elite creation. But the mainly negative or neutral press articles are also due to the undemocratic way of giving him political power through the peerage.

Therefore it is necessary to show exemplified some of the negative statements and his political background especially towards elitism as well as the key arguments about his peerage. This might look biased but is only a reflection of the almost universal negative public reaction and perhaps the fact that Adonis did not act publicly before 2005. So if somebody thinks, to quote these statements is a hatched job, he is wrong. The job – if there is one - is done by the media - almost unitary. That is why even Edward Davey, a political rival, is "...claiming that Adonis has been "unfairly portrayed in the press" [[2]]

It is not Wikipedias job to hide the fact of the mainly negative (or neutral) and little positive coverage. And biased reporting is not biased writing of Wikipedia articles, which is of course not our aim.

Finally, since two years nobody has added quotation of favourable press articles apart from a recent attempt to introduce a unsourced general statement in a speech at the House of Lords.

So, please, in this case, rethink your POV charge on sourced media criticism.

Please sign your posts. NPOV isn't just about this or that fact being allowed - it is also about the balance of the article. It is fair enough to record significant criticism of the individual - but, on the whole, we should recording the facts. That article was a compilation of criticism and negative media coverage and nothing much more. Give a couple of examples of the criticism and give a couple of sources, fine - but not that. We should be working towards haveing an article that both Baron Adonis and his fiercest critic would see as a fair account of his life, significance, and impact. I do not think that is you agenda.--Doc^g 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be mistaken: I am not responsible for the whole article. Still, I can't follow you: it 's not the aim of Wikipedia to balance an article so that at the end even Osama Ben Laden would see his one as fair. If a person activities and beliefs are not balanced Wikipedia will not counterbalance the facts.

So, if there is overwhelmingly negative or neutral press coverage we should firstly not neglect that. Secondly, the biography of a political person has to refer to press articles, if they reflect the political background of that person which is otherwise not approachable. Most of the cited articles are written by well known journalists of reputable newspapers. They can be used to lighten the political background as long as we do find better statements.

So, it is fair to report that many reputable sources come to the conclusion that Adonis is seen as not pure Labour, gives rise to some contradictions towards elitism, is accused of being heavily involved in some severe undemocratic operations, is asked to dismiss from his post and is himself realising that he will not survive the change of leader - all facts you deleted.

Of course, some people might mistake the quotation of these facts as unfair.

User:Bonding 17:18 . 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find your OTRS-number? By the way, I have no political agenda. Stop becoming personal.

User: Bonding 20:03 30 March 2007 (UTC)

About the Rand book criticism

Like you, I agree that we need to have a high degree of accuracy in articles and that statements regarding living persons must be sourced carefully. The only reason I reverted is that there were specific quotes from books listed, and I was unclear as to why they were removed. Were the direct book quotes in footnote 86 (the material in question) inaccurate, or was only the interpretation ("Mimi Gladstein argues Rand's characters are flat and uninteresting") wrong? If the latter, then a good compromise might be to include only actual quotes from prominent published criticisms. In any case, in the interests of editing peace, I will discuss such issues on talk pages in the future before reverting. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. The problem was not with the direct quotes in the footnote. It was with the allegation that Gladstein had described the characters as 'flat and uninteresting'. If you want to put the directly quoted material back, I have no objections.--Doc^g 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah good, I'll be along shortly with my pitchfork and matches.--Doc^g 00:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A work of genius

Hi Doc, just passing and thought I'd mention that I came across your poem 'Tae a sysop', and thought it rather excellent. Commendable sentiments + clever use of Scots, awesome! :-) --YFB ¿ 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Copyright violations on Palm Springs, California

You're not listed on the article page's history, could you have deleted the copyright violation while not logged in? Or are you going to delete something and this was a pre-warning? I'm trying to figure out what text is/was in violation. Thanks for the clarification. Brien Clark^Talk 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not listed in the history since I've never edited the article. Unfortunately, about six months ago a lot of copyrighted text was incorporated into the article, I deleted the revisions based on that text.--Doc^g 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

Hello, this is just to let you know that your speedy deletion of Barbara Bauer is being discussed at AN. Sandstein 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've also added a DRV about it - not a knock against your judgement, I know you err on the side of caution on these things, but it seems there's enough uncomfortableness about your decision that a proper discussion should occur. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Fuuuuuck!!!!!! I returned to wikipedia because I'd forgotten how fucking stupid wikipedians could be. I thought for a minute we had common sense and hadn't quite scraped the stupidity process wonking barrel. That article was a disgrace from start to finish. No mainstream media interest, and the word 'alleged' used about six times - most of it with regard to posts on message boards. If that's the standard of gutter-press inclusionism that we've now stooped to, then I'm even more disgusted with this excuse for a serious community than I was when I left. The fact that the project is apparently being sued by the subject (a fact I had no knowledge of when I deleted) makes the recklessness of trying to undelete this mindbogglingly stupid. Frankly, anyone who is seriously wanting to fight this one should be hard-banned as a total liability. We are supposed to be a serious educational resource - go fight for the 1st amendment elsewhere.--Doc^g 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't my intent to get you riled, but there was some significant concern. Sorry. d:-/ --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The page is now deleted and protected (with Jeff's notice in place), and the Board has asked us not to undelete until they get a chance to review. On the whole the mindboggling stupidity seems to be staved off ;) Here, have a {{beer}}. >Radiant< 13:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Doc you're going to need The Glenlivet dealing with this bunch. It's as if someone has opened a manhole again and out come the cast and crew of the Barabara Bauer/Disemvoweling Show. It will take Administrative intervention to beat them back. My issue is she isn't notable, and the article is defamatory. I predicted this and lost. Good luck. The page is not deleted anymore I rfeverted to that version and was swarmed and threatened with blocking on my talk page for "blanking it out."Marky48 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Kill Christ

I can't verify it, but someone else might be able to. The Storm Surfer 18:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP and adult entertainment industry

Hi Doc glasgow. In cleaning up some links and "following the trail" involving some biographies of people working in the adult entertainment industry, I've bumped into some BLP-type edits of yours. These are mainly removal of birth names from templates. I've noticed, however, that the same names have been left to remain elsewhere in the article. I respect your editing and intend to follow your example, so I am curious to know the rationale of removing the name in one place and leaving it in another. Thanks. Risker 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my mistake. When I remove such things I'm usually responding to an e-mail request. If I missed something you've spotted, I'd be obliged if you'd complete it.--Doc^g 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems, happy to oblige. I assume that only the birth name is being removed, and not DOB and birth location information? Or do you take that out too when it presents itself? Risker 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I've though about it. Check the sourcing - if it is sourced from stuff reabily in the public doman, fine. If someone's had to hunt it out or there is no source, then it probably should be removed as not pertient to the article. Year of birth is reasonable.--Doc^g 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Went to the Jesse Capelli article today because I recalled there may have been a use of the birth name left in; found that Valrith had reverted your edit with the summary "rvv" - thought you should know. It seems Valrith has re-added birth names to a number of articles on porn stars. Perhaps a word might be helpful? --Risker 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Knock what off?

Can you provide a little context as to what in particular you want me to stop? Last time I checked, when people place bogus warnings on my talk page, I'm entitled to remove them. If they're not bogus, I'm entitled to remove them anyway, and some will take this as a sign that they've been read. Chris cheese whine 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are edit waring and disrupting a poll. Just stop it and that will be the end of it.--Doc^g 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Doc, yesterday this user reported me to WP:AN/I. I responded, but later I discovered that Chriscf had deleted a large part of my response to his complaint three different times: ([3] [4] [5]).

Today he arbitrarily closed a discussion begun by another user earlier the same day [6], and reverted an admin's (Nv8200p) decision on IfD [7]. I'd appreciate it if you could take a closer look at his behavior. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 12 hours. You might consider a user conduct RfC if you want.--Doc^g 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) And yes, welcome back, Doc.

While I kind of agree with Chris on that IfD, I was shocked that he reverted it. Nv8200p is really approachable and I'm sure would at least hear Chris out. Also, there's also DRV *shudder* BTW, Doc, good to see you back. --Iamunknown 22:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No kidding, especially as Nv8200p's decision was a reasonable "wait and see" regarding a similar deletion proposal of Chriscf's. I am thinking very strongly about Doc's suggestion regarding an RfC, but I am concerned that if I started one, it could look as a form of tit-for-tat for Chriscf's frivolous AN/I of a day earlier, when this user's behavior (which also encompasses civility issues, failure to engage in discussion, apparent bad-faith deletions, removal of talk page comments, etc.) is evidently of concern to more than just me. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 23:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nelofer Pazira

I've removed her involvement with Fisk from her article as well. <<-armon->> 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Scandalous edits

Please desist from scandalous edits on Gary Whitehead page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.195.227 (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Gary Whitehead page

Hello,

I don't know who you are, but it seems you've been editing a page on Gary Whitehead. I'm Gary Whitehead, and I reported vandalism/scandal via email to Wikipedia. Someone posted a bunch of nonsense (pretty apparent, if read) as well as the scandalous story that I was addicted to heroin. I'm trying to get the page cleaned up or removed. I've tried editing it a few times myself, but it keeps getting reverted to the nonsense.

Please help.

Gary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.195.227 (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I am trying to help, I am the person who got your e-mail. Work with me. I didn't know which version was the vandalised one and which was true. --Doc^g 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Florida

The "personal" information, e.g. address is linked to all 67 counties through the Florida Division of Elections and is posted there publicly as is require for contact by the state from its own laws F.S. Ch. 97-106. As Marc Luzietti a.k.a. Chegitz guevara continues to make statements towards illegal action the State Atty.'s Office and Elections Commission has taken notice as he claims to be "underground" and "Communist" and has made it public notice of protest without a permit while inciting a riot directly threatens the ballot line for SPF voters. He is no longer working within the SPF Constitution and with outside illegal action from the National Committee in try to censor an elected Officer of the Party in this effort over a turf war as several state locals have left the Socialist Party USA due directly because of the actions of the National Committee. Florida happens to be the largest socialist state and affects the SP-USA's income directly and this is why the National Committee is working very hard to overthrow Florida's only remaining elected Officer.

On the Socialist Party of Florida page you and others can go back and note I was the person who started the page and fought to keep it. I have also been the one doing all the up keep with current information. Nothing there was ever out of order or nothing that could not be found if looking for it through the Myflorida.com or other State of Florida legal websites. Marc Luzietti a.k.a. Chegitz guevara only concern is that he has caused illegal trouble and now has to live with the fear of his lack of judgment and in this attempt to vandalize information on the page I created and have maintained.

The main point of contention is the use of personal information I now cite Florida State Law, Title IX, 103.091 Political parties, (3) "The state executive committee of each political party shall file with the Department of State the names and addresses of its chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer, and members and shall file a copy of its constitution, bylaws, and rules and regulations with the Department of State. Each county executive committee shall file with the state executive committee and with the supervisor of elections the names and addresses of its officers and members."

Atlee Yarrow a.k.a. Comraderedoctober State Chair, Socialist Party of Florida —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comraderedoctober (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

BLP check of Adam Yahiye Gadahn

Hey Doc-

I just remembered that I nominated you for adminship a loooong time ago, though I don't think we've interacted much since then. (I also had a long break from here and a username change in the intervening time.)

Down to brass tacks, though: would you mind having a look at Adam Yahiye Gadahn, particularly the first paragraph under the "Background" header. Is mentioning such a large number of Gadahn's ascendant relatives a BLP violation? I'd appreciate your time greatly.

Thanks, A Train^talk 19:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, great to see you again. I don't think it is a BLP violation, in that the fact he's a convert and from a devoutly Christian family is significant. Perhaps some of the details could be less prominent, but that's really a stylistic quibble. Besides BLP is designed to protect subjects who may have reputations to protects, I doubt this one will care much. Actually, what strikes me most about the article is its appalling US POV. The opening paragraph, which should summarise the significance of the person to a world-wide audience (including muslims and Arabs) is obsessed with his official status visa via the FBI and US judiciary. Yes, the opening paragraph should perhaps mention his indictment - but the rest belongs lower down. This is an international multi-cultural encyclopaedia, not an on-line edition of the US 'ten most wanted'. But then Wikipedia usually has a very US bias. Don't know whether that helps or not.--Doc^g 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Doc. :) A Train^talk 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hawaiian BLP

Beat me to it by one minute! FCYTravis 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

except it isn't a BLP. It is a BDP ;) --Doc^g 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right ;) FCYTravis 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your request for comment

I commented. I think the whole list is original research and should have been deleted long ago. However, it would be futile to try again with another good-faith AfD, given the (often prurient) interest in items that loosely fit the definition offered of an internet phenomenon. In the circumstances, I support ruthless policing of the article for BLP concerns. Metamagician3000 01:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I've said before we should delete all subjective lists.--Doc^g 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Seems to me that you have two options here. You can live with the fact that this whole affair will for ever haunt your wikipedia experience - or you can learn from it and try to draw a line under it. If you try again for RfA in a few months, you will probably fail again as a lot of folk will say 'that's that guy that defended attack sites - oppose'. Your alternative is to reflect on why people are unhappy - and, after a few days, make a statement reflecting on your mistakes, what you'd do differently, and how you understand the community's concerns (you don't have to agree with them, you just need to show that you've noted them and will avoid the behaviour that concerns others). If you can do that, I'd suggest you file a self-RfC - you'll get a lot of stick in the short term but if you can hold your tongue and not be too defensive you'll find you draw off quite a bit of the criticism. That way if you file an RfA in a few months, people will, on the whole, consider the issue dealt with and examine your otherwise excellent contributions since.--Doc^g 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I may just do what you suggest. Actually, even if I do what you say and wait six-months to a year while carefully avoiding any controversial actions, the results may be the same. Anything negative related to the Gary Weiss article touches a very raw nerve in a certain few individuals and results in a much more intense response than what appears to happen with similar situations in other areas in the project and I'm not sure why. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but some of us are less concerned about history as we are looking to be certain that we won't have a future problem. I opposed you, but I'll certainly keep an open mind.--Doc^g 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

An RFA comment

I think this comment is only likely to escalate tensions but if you're going to insist on this then you need to mark more votes, mine for instance. Haukur 12:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA is supposed to be a discussion. Frankly I'm disgusted by it at the moment. Folk want to withhold the mop for reasons that have nothing to do with whether Danny's having it is a net benefit to us or not. There are people wanting to punish him for not jumping through RfA hops, and others who bear a grudge, and others who are angry because their morbid curiosity for news of internal events in the foundation and Danny's views on it are not being satisfied. What Danny did as an employee is a matter for his employer, not us. The whole show is pathetic and disgusting - and I consider my comments there are stating the obvious, and incredibly restrained given the idiocy (and yes I use the deliberately) which is possessing some people. Adminship is no big deal and not to be refused for reasons of personality, politics, because someone isn't satisfying the community's curiosity, or because they didn't ask nicely. Sysopping Danny should be a formality, and if the community descends to this crap - then perhaps we need to purge the community.--Doc^g 12:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can't judge Danny based on his conduct while he worked for the Foundation then how should we judge him? Haukur 13:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We know enough about him to know he's not going to run amok and damage wikipedia by his use of the tools. We know he's sane and committed to the project. Adminship is no big deal - we're not interviewing him as a potential employee or being asked to re-authorise his use of OFFICE, so the case is really open and shut. I asked his advice with a delicate BLP issue the other day, and he couldn't assist me because he couldn't see the deleted edits. With all the experience he has to offer, that's nuts. --Doc^g 14:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some good would probably come from giving him the admin tools - like you being more easily able to consult him on an issue like that, which I agree would be beneficial. But all things considered I'm not convinced that making him an admin would be a net gain for the project. I think his conduct in the Erik Möller incident could, to borrow your words, be reasonably described as a "run-amok-and-damage-Wikipedia" kind of thing. To put it more bluntly I think Danny is an unreconstructed tough guy and I don't trust him with the delete and block buttons. If he does prevail I wish him the best and hope to be proven wrong. Haukur 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hakur in that I don't think it is constructive to write under a vote that the given vote should be discarded (although I agree that sometimes votes can be truly silly). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a discussion - in a discussion you are allowed to indicate the invalidity of an argument that isn't pertinent to the decision under discussion. If I made such silly arguments, I trust others would point out the irrelevance.--Doc^g 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, feel free. It's just that you had made a very honest effort to de-escalate on the talk page so I thought I'd comment here. But I understand you feel strongly about this and you are perfectly entitled to engage with opinions you disagree with or think irrelevant. Haukur 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the RfArb for Daniel Brandt and User:Daniel Brandt

I'd like to disagree with you on my motivations. I just do not see any benefit to the content of WP to reward someone who has made months of baseless legal threats against the project (remember, truth is an absolute defense in the court of law), and has dedicated a large portion of his time as an enabler to those who want to disrupt WP (I was very specific that I found their actions odious, not them specifically).

I'm not a fan of procedure for the sake of procedure, but we have months upon months of his actions (HOW many times was the article put up for deletion by a sockpuppet of Brandt?), that he's not going to play by the rules, no matter what lengths WP go to appease him.

Anyway, just wanted to give you my two cents on where I'm coming from on this issue. Have a good day. SirFozzie 08:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence

Thanks! I'll try not do anything too stupid with the extra buttons. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm back - but less

Right now, I quit. --Doc^g 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We've stopped being an encyclopedia. We've stopped using common sense. We've taken our eye of the big picture and focused on ourselves, our myopic power games, our petty process, and our internal need to keep every one in line. We count sources to determine notability - because we need objective rules. Never mind the fact it is absurd. We fight little wars with monsters of our own imagination. Never mind the fact they cheapen us. We care not for the damage we do to the real world and its real people, or potential we miss, as long as we can make little rules and have little people follow them. I'm sick of the little people and their little rules. For now, I want no part of them.

I may come back next year, next week, or even tomorrow night. But the truth is that the longer I stay away, the more I will like myself.--Doc^g 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is a direct or indirect result of List of Internet phenomena, I feel some responsibility for the situation. Please e-mail me. Newyorkbrad 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. You've been one of the pillars of common sense and decency - it is more than that.--Doc^g 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then I feel way more responsible..--Wizardman 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure I've added to it, this is just bad. If there's anyone who makes this project better, it's you, so I hope you'll take a night and sleep on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like any other self-organizing tribal system will build its set of rules, and will try to control its inhabitants. And the people with true vision get pushed out.... Join the club. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to develop and apply rules; the project can't be sustained without rules. Process is a wonderful thing. The alternative is that forceful individuals impose their will, which they may call "common sense", on others. Beyond the issue of having a structure based on rules or the absence of rules, there is the issue of whether the structure is controlled by the community or by a few forceful individuals. Community-based rules are ultimately liberating and empowering. We cannot have meaningful community governance without putting rules before "common sense". Everyking 09:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, the problem is that community rules tend to be the least offensive denominator and a major reason for the mediocre state of wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn! Damn! Damn! -- Donald Albury 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you resume editing Wikipedia, please ensure that your edits do not damage article formatting. Although entire sections must sometimes be deleted, failing to remove the section header hurts readability and organization! Best wishes, Therealhazel 07:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"We've taken our eye of the big picture and focused on ourselves, our myopic power games, our petty process, and our internal need to keep every one in line." Comme ci? (I'm not in any way related to that guy - I don't know who he is even - I just saw your actions and found them a little... silly). 70.82.80.160 18:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I have seen a reference in a location outside Wikipedia claiming that I had something to do with causing Doc glasgow's departure. That is emphatically not the case, and I am sorry if my wording above was somehow misleading. What I meant in my comment above was that my calling attention to unsourced or unwarranted negative comment about non-notable living persons in the article List of Internet phenomena may have drawn Doc's attention to that article, which may have led to some of the subsequent events of last week. For background, see my statement in the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow. (The statements of others are worthwhile reading too; they encapsulate certain areas of disagreement very well, although the more mundane aspects of the user-conduct issues are pretty much moot.)

I want to state very clearly that I agree with about 90% of what Doc glasgow has to say about biographies of living persons on Wikipedia, including in the Brian Peppers debate last week and in a much less prominent deletion debate now ongoing at AfD, although he and I have disagreed about some other matters. The suggestion that I was a major cause of Doc departing, as suggested on an external site, is simply a mistake.

Wikipedia is a lesser community when we lose any of our sincere contributors. It is especially true that the type of contributor who would leave over a matter of principle such as the one motivating Doc's departure, is often the type that we can least afford to lose. I hope to see Doc glasgow back here soon, and I hope to see badlydrawnjeff remain, and Jmaynard as well: all of us have more common ground than I believe any of you realize. Of course, there are discussions yet unhad and battles yet unfought, but people need to stay here to fight them. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Links to "attack" sites

I can understand some of the reasoning behind drafting a guideline about links to sites that publish negative information about Wikipedia or its editors. While such a policy might help "protect" the project from a hostile work environment, another reason for it is to help project administrators protect themselves. It's true that much of what appears on anti-Wikipedia sites is bitter vitriol and libelous hearsay. But, just like concerned citizens who uncover abuses in national government operations, external sites sometimes uncover something wrong in this project. Such was the case with the Gary Weiss article. An external site, which I still would argue over whether it meets the definition of an "attack" site or not and whose name is "unmentionable" here on Wikipedia, wrote an article highlighting blatant POV pushing on the Gary Weiss article and included evidence that anyone could check and confirm for themselves if they so wanted to. If that article had been in the Washington Post, this wouldn't even be an issue. But because it was in a blog, it's labled as an "attack" site and banned from the project, for reasons not adequately explained by those involved other than claiming that "it's an attack."

A more formalized policy against "attack" sites is very dangerous, because it could be used by administrators to arbitrarily take action for personal reasons and would only have to justify their actions by citing the policy. Cla68 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why I was concerned about your nomination. You're either being disingenuous and you're associated with the person behind that website, or you're being naive in the extreme. Of course if it were in the Washington Post we could use it. But you'd never find it there because it's libellous. It was created for the express purpose of internet stalking by an employee of someone the journalist Gary Weiss had written about. It's not labeled as an attack site "because it was in a blog," but because it is an attack site. It's even been written about by the New York Times as part of what the newspaper called a "campaign of menace," and it may have amounted to criminal harassment because it was conducted anonymously for the first few months of the website's operation. I received an anonymous e-mail from the person behind it saying he was going to "take me out." Not only did you link to it several months ago after being made aware that editors were being harassed, but you linked to it again three times during your recent nom, including after an admin warned you you might be blocked for it. You're stretching good faith to its absolute limit, to be frank. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue here. I'm discussing why a policy that tries to define attack sites is problematic. Anyway, on to this other subject...part of the debate on my RfA was about whether that site was an attack site or not. The details you're finally discussing above should have been brought up in the RfA discussion about it. That's how we make decisions about things on Wikipedia, something I've found out by hard experience in the past, is by openly discussing the issues amongst ourselves. By the way, was the "blockage" warning before or after you "clarified" the applicable policy? Cla68 05:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which details you mean; it's obvious that it's an attack site so you didn't need to be given extra details, and I did explain to you back in November that editors were being harassed and that you were, I hoped inadvertently, helping the person doing it. I also don't know what your question means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cla this is utter foolishness. You have appeared to be a supporter of site that attack, harass and ridicule your fellow wikipedians. I was willing to give yo the benefit of the doubt, and assume this just poor judgements on your part, that you probably could learn your lessons and move on. However, you seem to want to continue to be the advocate of such sites. Are there problems with a blanket policy of censoring sites? Yes. Can this if taken too far get silly? Absolutely. And there are plenty of Wikipedians who will scream blue murder if this type of limitation goes too far. But you, who need to be convincing us that you aren't a supporter of such sites, are precisely the wrong person to plead this case, and particularly against someone like Sarah who has been one of the biggest victims of their worse abuse and bile. Drop it. I was willing to assume good faith, given you otherwise great contributions to this encyclopedia, but now I'm in danger of assuming the worst. --Doc^g 08:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the site, or are you choosing to take someone else's word that no one should know or want to know what it says? "Shooting the messenger" is age-old way to try to suppress unwanted or uncomfortable information. The article, no matter what the motivation was of the individual who wrote it, displayed compelling evidence, that anyone could check for themselves, that there were some serious problems with the Gary Weiss article. I handled the situation very clumsily, but, that article now belongs to the community again instead of a couple of POV-pushing editors, as it was before. I'm willing to endure some "grief" for my efforts, because I believe this project is bigger than any one or small group of editors involved with it, and in addition to myself that includes any of the editors who have been here for awhile and have apparently built-up some strong referential power among other long-term editors.

Now, if all my edits on Wikipedia were as an iconoclast to solely debate administrative issues then I could understand any doubts over my good faith intentions for the project. Instead, look at the articles I've worked on. They're listed on my user page. Check my "contributions' log and look at the articles I've started or heavily edited. Does my edit history look like the edit history of someone who wants to see Wikipedia fail, or who wants to destroy the reputation of the long-time editors and administrators who are heavily responsible for the project's success to this point?

Spam and vandalism aren't the only threats to Wikipedia's future. Did you notice that two of Wikimedia's full-time staffers resigned suddenly within a week of each other? Doesn't that "sound any alarm bells" for you? Are the "inmates running the asylum?" With as many hours as I've put into this project, don't judge me to harshly for wanting to know the answers to these questions and, after what I've seen with the Gary Weiss situation, being suspicious of any efforts made to control what information is presented here on these pages. Cla68 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Apr_07, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Get not your friends by bare compliments, but by giving them sensible tokens of your love." :) --Doc^g 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

protection policy

You might want to look at protection policy, which says "Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack, though more leeway should be given with these than with most articles." --W.marsh 15:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If under attack it might be protected for a hour or so perhaps - but not for a week. Anyway, I see no need to semi-protect high profile articles ever. We catch and revert damage here very quickly.--Doc^g 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... you said it was policy to never protect such articles. I was pointing out that's not really true. --W.marsh 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I should never cite policy when appeals to common-sense will do ;) --Doc^g 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Common sense strikes again? ;-) --Kim Bruning 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are jeff, he doesn't believe in it.--Doc^g 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do be nice! :-) --Kim Bruning 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Jeff's a good lad - he can take it! --Doc^g 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken

I just had seen it past when real names were used in edit summaries (although stretching my mind, I think I remember that phone #'s and addresses were also in the edit summary when it was oversighted away). Glad to see you back, and under better circumstances then the last time we interacted. Have a great day. SirFozzie 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Doc^g 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)