User talk:Doc glasgow

“ here's the deal. There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened. We're prolonging 15 minutes of fame into a theoretically-permanent Wikipedia article. In my, and many others, opinions, that is not a good thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper. Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story. FCYTravis 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ”

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

you might be interested in reading the above. regards--Vintagekits 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done. I see no consensus there. So?--Doc^g 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So? So what? I dunno - I was just pointing you in the direction of it!--Vintagekits 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User comments

Domt remove other user comments and dont call me atroll when I am making valuable comments. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will call you a troll when you are trolling. Knock it off.--Doc^g 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No I am not. How can you accuse me of trolling? Hipocrite doesnt have a right to out other users, IMO, and I have the right to seek admin advice re this especially as it is such a controversial issue right now, SqueakBox 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Read him again. He's being sarcastic. You are the one defending WR.--Doc^g 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Was he? I'm the one giving out personal info, and I have never defended the outing of individuals on WR or elsewhere. That I defend the right to link to non attacking pages on WR is surely my right, SqueakBox 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not a BLP vio

Can you point me to the part of WP:BLP that indicates that they are? Viridae^Talk 01:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported my actions (and yours) to arbcom, and invited them to consider them.--Doc^g 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Am aware of that. Can you point me to the part of BLP policy that says that these are violations. I will be happy to keep it deleted if there is clear volation but I don't believe that exists, meaning you took unilateral action outside of policy which considering the current events is incredibly disruptive. Viridae^Talk 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Get a grip. You are still process wonking. They are biographies of living people - they report only a negative incident. To see hy that's unsuitable for wikipedia, read what a dozen people have said on the DRV. If you still don't get it, I'll see you at arbcom.--Doc^g 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The negative incident is not any reflection on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. And I am aware of the DRV, having participated in it. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You closed a DRV in which you had participated?--Doc^g 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you had stopped to read the close reason, you would see why. Viridae^Talk 01:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. But the reason was invalid. The deleting admin does not get a final say when many others have called for the articles to remain deleted. In any case, DRV does not trump BLP. And if you believe that the DRV reversed an A7. Then just consider that I redeleted per WP:BLP - which is a separate reason. If you don't like it - then file an RfC. DRV cannot undo a BLP deletion.--Doc^g 01:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot (accurately) cite why this IS a BLP violation. DRV is about deletion policy (not article content) so notability arguments do not hold weight. The deleting admin agreed she had mistakenly violated policy and hence asked me to perform the afd listing. I did that on procedural grounds. On the subject of BLP. The article IS Sourced, it is NOT overly critical of anyone involved - in fact it is not critical at all and as such is not a BLP violation - stop bending the rules for your own agenda, without behaviour like that this ongoing mess would never have happened, yet you insist on adding fuel to the fire. Viridae^Talk 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored your DRV close - I should not have reverted that, it was a misjudgement. However, I judge these articles to be a violation of WP:BLP and have deleted them as such. If you wish to dispute my judgement, then methods are open to you.--Doc^g 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"The methods" will be taken when I have time. Viridae^Talk 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the DRV close is now invalid if the articles are to remain deleted. Please re-open it or at least change the close to reflect your actions. The way, the truth, and the light 01:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the close is valid, I think. It overturned an A7 speedy. I have deleted on the seperate grounds of WP:BLP - if yo wish to dispute that, then please go to dispute resolution--Doc^g 02:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you were just going to delete them on BLP grounds why let the DRV run in the first place? Why not just close that on the same grounds. Viridae^Talk 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the articles were deleted I didn't see the point. I never imagined they'd be undeleted.--Doc^g 02:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are willing to let process run only if it is going to get the result you want...? Viridae^Talk 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Naturally, process matters less that product. Anyway, I'm off to bed.--Doc^g 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If the DRV looked (in your opinion) that it was going to undelete the article would you have closed it ie if it wasn't going to get the result you wanted would you have still let it run? You cannot dismiss process out of hand - its exactly that that caused this mess. Viridae^Talk 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on process. You closed the DRV on your interpretation of some aspect of process that I don't understand and probably wouldn't agree with. I deleted the articles on my interpretation of policy - that you evidently don't agree with. We disagree. Either drop it or take it to dispute resolution.--Doc^g 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you prefer first? RfC or should we just assume it'll go nowhere and open a new ArbCom case? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your move I believe. I suspect an RfC will go as badly for you as the last one did. I do quite well in them normally.--Doc^g 02:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I think the RfC with me went exactly as expected. It showed no consensus for the madness you promote, as well as demonstrating that heavy-handed disruptiveness doesn't sit well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think it showed people are on the whole more concerned with the encyclopedia being what it can be than silly notions of process. Look, these article are dead. The battle is over. You want another round, then bring it on. But you will lose.--Doc^g 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. The articles are only dead because you have to be continually disruptivwe to make it so. You have no argument, so you resort to disruption. That's a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this. As I've said, if you have so little empathy that you can't even see that there's an argument on the other side, then there is no point in me talking to you.--Doc^g 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary - I see the other side, I just don't see how it's relevant to act as if your ethical standard trumps anyone else. We're an encyclopedia, Doc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Go away, please. I wish to talk with you no longer. Stay off my talk page.--Doc^g 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that consensus built. You have to realize that if everyone's challenging you, you just might be wrong and you ought to give process a chance. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, including the ones based on WP:BLP. Those are narrow for a reason. Your actions are not supported by any policy or guideline and it is not "process wonkery" to point out that fact. AfD is where consensus to delete articles is measured. DRV is there to gauge correctness of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The only speediable BLP violations fall into G10 - which only applies to articles not supported by their sources. The fact that you don't like what this article said, even though it was all true and supported, is not a speedy criterion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting a quote doesn't excuse why an article must be deleted now, rather than in a week or two after process has run its course. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you scared to let an AfD run? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Naughty boy. Try asking a question that addresses the serious and overriding policy issues rather than taunting and trying to frame the debate. --Tony Sidaway 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

I see that you have merged the articles about Kimberly Mays and Switched at Birth and removed the information I had included about her later life. I don't entirely agree with your judgment here, but I'm willing to let it stand. However, please restore the citation I had included citing the CNN article. This is necessary for the article to remain as it is. Uncited material cannot stand. However, I do like what you did with the Baby Jessica case article and the Elizabeth Morgan Act articles. If I had thought about it, this is probably the way I would have chosen to write them in the first place. --Bookworm857158367 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Collective authorship?

Your valuable insight on this would be greatly appreciated. TIA, --Irpen 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume he's talking about Doc's use of a page in his namespace to prepare his arbitration request on Badlydrawnjeff. He was not alone in his concern about that editor and invited others to review and edit it. I certainly did edit it at least once, and others may have done. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

messages from the real world

Anecdotally: I was down the pub tonight talking to regular humans who aren't Wikipedians about this. Like, they use it and know what it is and how it works and that it's written by nerds with too much time and so forth, but aren't regulars in any way.

And I think our hardline policy on BLPs is absolutely what the world would want. The incidents themselves have to be notable, not just verifiable. A carefully researched piece of footnoted crusading journalism may be noble, but it's NOT Wikipedia. Having an article in someone's name is a curse, because our page rank puts it straight at the top of Google. Etc.

They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.

I mean, I don't know if we can give you a medal for dealing with this rubbish so well on a continuing basis, but we should see if there's a way to. - David Gerard 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it come in that we can't go through process or modify articles to be under the name of the notable incident, they must be speedied with no recourse? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Schmidt....changes.....???

Hey....if you're gonna change this to a story about the case, you better be SURE that your facts are straight....which they aren't!!!!!!!! Legal issues can/will arise about untrue statements or incomplete stories that depict something that isn't....................crocodyle 07:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)