User talk:Doc glasgow

OTRSBot?

I've noticed the User:Doc glasgow/OTRS watch page, and while in-channel notice a distinct lack of the bot. Have you heard if the idea was feasible or not, or possibly just disliked by the idlers in the channel?

If it's acceptable to the other agents, I'm tempted to just write the thing myself and host it on my ts account.

BTW, info-en and permissions queues both have backlogs, if you've got access and are bored. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 07:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been operating for some months at #wikimedia-otrs-watch ,although I've not had much to do with it lately. See [1] --Doc^g 09:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

Could you take a look at my comments on Talk:Jay Brannan? I'd appreciate it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered.--Doc^g 01:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tense interaction

You already won; there is dignity in taking a break from the endless arguments on that page. Especially, since you seem overexcited, with the haphazard, fragmented copying of comments into edit summaries, and so on. That tone, that form, it just adds further tension. We need less. El_C 11:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Won what? I do not consider I won anything. Nor am I over-excited. Actually, I am very calm. I often cut and paste my comments into edit summaries (as do many), I consider it useful for anyone searching the history for a particular comment. However, I'm happy to re-think it, if there's a consensus that it isn't helpful. I'm not sure what the tension is that you feel. Maybe you need to unwatch for a bit? SlimVirgin made some allegations, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the problem. Maybe she should have taken the discussion elsewhere??? I'm happy to see it dropped or re-commenced elsewhere.--Doc^g 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why haven't you asked Slim to drop it too? I feel picked on :( --Doc^g 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

I am awarding you a Special barnstar for this message which summarizes perfectly the intractable situation with which ArbCom was stuck. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks. That certainly a colourful one.--Doc^g 12:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Queen bee (subculture)

Hello there. I de-prodded this article on the basis that I felt it maybe should be kept in its original form (although probably with some changes over the course of the AFD). I see that you AFDed it but then closed the AFD and changed it back to a redirect. Would you be amenable to the idea of me reverting it back and re-opening the AFD, to see if people still feel the same. Having looked at the original AFD, the redirect decision does seem slightly questionable as there were three outright keep !votes. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you open a deletion discussion to settle the question of a redirect, people may shout at you.--Doc^g 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. So what should I do if I believe that the article should not be a redirect? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea, since I can't see how an article could possibly be justified. The current one is certainly trash. You could try to write something on the talk page and try to get a consensus.--Doc^g 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have reverted it back to the article and will start working on it and trying to discuss on the talk page as you suggest. To be honest the current version seems OK to me but does need more work and sources. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest you reverted it back, there is currently consensus for a redirect NOT an article. I suggested you made your case for changing the consensus on the talk page.--Doc^g 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Princess Louise FAC

Just a quick note to say thanks very much for copyediting Princess Louise, It's much appreciated. It was a good idea to remove the British princesses template, and un-collapse the Ancestry template, but they were put in as standard by the WP:BROY directors (Danbarnesdavies and Morhange). I'll leave a note on the project talk page about it, and raise concerns about some browsers coping with the "hide" templates and so on. Anyway, I've left a barnstar in your awards section, but the signature isn't appearing. Best wishes and thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Collapsing of Ancestry templates and Template:British princesses. You may wish to read it to check if I've raised your concerns correctly, and/or give your own views. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured those changes might get reverted, but anyway I thought it was worth a try. The princesses' box thingy was strange, why the unexplained generations. Nice article :) --Doc^g 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, unfortunately. I've asked for the template to be edited so it makes it absolutely clear the generations are from George I. It's currently at the bottom (I missed it, though) so I've asked it to be put at the top instead. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm prejudiced here. I hate these bloody things, per my WP:UNBOX.--Doc^g 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you! The British princesses template is now a little clearer, so the generations descent is made clear at the top instead of the bottom. However I don't believe it adds anything to the article, since there's a category for princesses. PeterSymonds | talk 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've begun a discussion here about the template, as my last act before I sleep :). I wouldn't copy your comments at WP:FAC over without your permission, so if you wish to comment there you're most welcome. It may help because the primary contributors to the BRoy talk page are the users that created the template. Anyway, I've added two alternative suggestions for users to consider, hoping that our view may be shared. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bish's page

Check the history (or checkuser). Yomangani^talk 10:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser, do you? I did check the history, all I see is a single purpose sock, but I see no evidence that it is bishonen. Could be, but I doubt it, not her style. What's your reason for certainty?--Doc^g 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the name is a reference to her opus S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. It's either her or someone pretending to be her.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is her. I have secret sleuthing powers, which allows me to know that for certain that she wants her sentimental crap saved. Yomangani^talk 11:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, not worth arguing over. Had you just said, "bishonen told me", I'd have dropped it. I lack ESP.--Doc^g 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Electronic skid protection? Me too. I keep falling over when I'm ice-skating. Yomangani^talk 11:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with regulating my polynomials--Doc^g 12:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley

Can you let me know if I have addressed your concerns well enough that you can now support the Tyrone Wheatley FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

it seems you have discounted rather than address my concerns, which is naturally your right.--Doc^g 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I considered your suggestions and was against most of them. I did not ignore them. I guess I was looking for your opinion of my responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how I have done with your comments. Could you please strike through resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

who needs a "kick me sign"

Indeed.  :) Dlohcierekim Deleted? 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation

Fixed. Sorry about that. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources and notability added

Hi Doc: I have spent some time improving the two articles currently up for deletion. The Adas Israel Congregation and Adath Jeshurun Congregation articles, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) and Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate them from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, are now a full articles. They meet all criteria for such articles. I also wish to point out that this is proof of what can and should be done to improve stubs. Merely because someone has started a stub does not mean that the article of a place/person/event are "not notable" since not all people have the time and capability of working to improve such articles. There is no statute of limitations on how long a stub deemed to be significant can exist and it is certainly no reason to invoke reasons to eliminate them, otherwise why do we have stubs in the first place? It is requested that the nominations be withdrawn! Please look into this. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again at the stubs. But, your attitude here is really out of line. We discuss these things and reach consensus, we don't make threats, we don't insist that some wikiproject gets to decide, we don't do special pleading. Stubs can develop, you are correct, and I totally agree. But something in a stub needs to show that the thing has some significance to allow us to believe it is worth keeping about to let it grow. If these articles have that then fine, but frankly they utterly lacked that, and we normally speedy delete articles with no assertion of notability. That does not prevent them being created again later with an assertion of notability if one exists. There is no reason to "withdraw" the nomination - we simply debate until consensus is reached.--Doc^g 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But Doc, you are hearing from multiple editors associated with WP:JUDAISM, who have a far better insight into and expertise about these topics, who are essentially all stating that the stubs in qustion can all be fleshed out and that reliable sources exist. The root of the problem though here is that someone decided to go on a spree of creating stubs about synagogues in Minnesota, not adding more to them when requested, and leaving others to face the music and defend his unfinished work. See below... Thanks for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs

Hi Doc: You may be interested to know that I have contacted User Grika (talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hong Kong Market Crash.jpg

Hi Doc - I see you added a new tag to this one, after I had put up the standardized NFUr template. This photo was initially uploaded by Bishonen, who of course is now gone (I caught the notice from her userpage, which is on my watchlist), and I am just doing damage limitation by adding the tag. Would you have any suggestions as to how this image can be "saved"? Uploaded materials are an area where I have extremely limited experience, so I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks. Risker (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is a copyrighted image that falls outside our non-free use policy. At the time it was uploaded by bishonen, we were a lot more liberal about this. But under the current rules, I'm afraid it ought to be deleted. It is pretty clear cut.--Doc^g 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think our young revolutionary is being deliberately obstreperous, Doc. Between El C, Nandesuka, and myself, this is the third or fourth time we have tried to resolve the issues with this same image. The rationale for deletion that you have given here in this section is the first one that has concretely explained why the image should be deleted; up until now, we've been stumbling around in the dark trying to solve a problem that wasn't actually identified. Now that I see the reasoning, I don't intend to pursue the matter further. Risker (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, glad its sorted. No hard feelings, bad communication all round.--Doc^g 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

moot

What does moot mean? --123Pie (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Moot means the discussion is now pointless. Nominating your page for deletion for having too many userboxes was ridiculous. However, deleting the page because of an inappropriate username would not have been, but since the username issues was being addressed, there was no longer any point in deletion the page, hence moot. I hope that helps.--Doc^g 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --123Pie (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Defining NPOV

Hi Doc: Regarding your outburst here: [2] I want to just focus on one important point that I see that you, like many others, do not grasp. You state: "This is a neutral encyclopedia and we operate as a community regardless of ideology. I hope all voters leave their POV at the door when they engage here (although obviously you are unable to do that)" and I am truly astounded at your conclusion. Let me explain something to you. The abbreviation WP:NPOV means that when editors write or edit articles they must adhere to a "Neutral Point Of View" it does NOT mean that editors must have "NO Point Of View" at all because everyone is entitled to have their own point of view at all times and in fact keep it. That personal point of view may even be a source for the material in many good articles, provided that all is written in a "NEUTRAL Point Of View"! Thus the "N" in NPOV stands for "NEUTRAL" and not for "NO" and no-one is requested or required to give up anything they believe in or think. Now, you should know by now, that what is written on article pages is not the same as what is often allowed and expressed on article talk pages or at AFDs where there is more leeway to express a variety of different views and in ways different to how it's done in articles. In those places there is more openess to express oneself more fully and freely, and just as I tolerate you letting off steam at me and I don't get angry at you (why should I, I believe in the merit of turning the other cheek and that two wrongs do not make a right) and you are free to make the wildest accusations against me on talk pages and AFD pages as that is your right to have a POV there, but that could bever be written into an actual article because in articles everything must be written in as Neutral Point Of View way as is humanly possible. So again, NPOV does not mean "NO" Point Of View, and we are allowed to privately and even on talk pages and AFDs retain and have our Personal Point Of View and even share it openly (sharing nothing about our thoughts is bad and it's better if we understand where we each of us is coming from) as long as it is within the basic bounds of what is after-all a strong debate at an AFD where important issues are being discussed and not about some meaningless niceties of no real concern to an intelligent person. Thank you. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of what NPOV stands for. But it is not neutral to suggest that editors who don't share your religious presuppositions should be disqualified from participating in deletion debates. Whether I Jew, a Christian or an atheist is not your concern, we deal with the content and the content decisions we don't do ad hominem: your remark that "editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not" is contrary both to NPOV and assuming good faith. And frankly, since you are here to lecture me, I find your exploitation of the history of Jewish persecution, and the holocaust, as an argument in a deletion debate to be offensive in the extreme [3]. --Doc^g 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I like your style and I am not offended by anything you say to or about me. I am very careful about my choice of words and you on the other hand have a tendency to put words into other people's mouths, and here we have a good example when you falsely accuse me of saying "editors who don't share your [my] religious presuppositions should be disqualified from participating in deletion debates" when I never said anything like that! Do you think I am that dumb? And I have almost never called anyone to be "disqualified" for or from anything even when I know that they do not mean me well and wish to destroy what I hold precious, (one exception was when a notorious banned and blocked sockpuppeteer hurled the most abusive and violent curses at me). I can live with enemies. But it seems that the notion of "disqualification" is an obsession and even sometimes a bad habit some admins pick up since it is they who run around "disquailfying" this or that editor for this or that infringement, a job I have never aspired to and never liked. You are thinking too much like an admin and not acting with WP:AGF that I am NOT saying what YOU THINK or IMAGINE I am saying! Take a very careful look again at my words that you don't like, and you will see that I am not "disqualifying" anyone from voting or saying or doing anything (how could I, am I Jimbo Wales?) but what I am saying is the obvious, that we should watch out for the dangers of the influences of ignorance or prejudice in shaping outcomes and in this case it's "editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not" -- and note I state "should" and NOT "disqualified" -- just as everyone needs to be on guard against any group of editors who have been been known for pro- or anti-something writing and editing then suddenly descending upon the subjects they oppose and despise to pick them apart to look via tendentious reasons and hiding behind technicalities to get them removed, and delete some of them. Or for pro-something editors to get involved with AFDs on issues they oppose and start pontificating against it. I know it's a little bit more of higher-order thinking than some people are accustomed to, but it is nevertheless kosher and within bounds. Therefore, if you would allow me to explain myself instead of screaming yourt head off at me each time I write something, you will see that I am saying something that is reasonable and logical and that can righfully be expressed as a concern or request that editors be more senstive and conscious to lurking bias or dangers that should not be influencing the matter under discussions (and when you enter discussions, check that word "disqualifying" at the door). Editors don't enter AFDs like robotic unsmiling automatons to say just yea or nay and then walk away like the zombie brain dead. All editors always have underlying serious concerns about the ongoing viability and survival of topics that are closest to their hearts and expertise and they express, sometimes not the way you would like to hear it, so ask for better clarification rather than getting your back up. I am talking logic, reason, morality and justice and I am not losing myself nor hiding behind all sorts of disctracting and distractable minutia. About my other comments you pass judgment without asking me to explain. You are sitting in judgment of me while I am trying to engage you in a discussion, so that it makes it difficult to communicate. Emergency situations require emergency responses but my discussions are a part of the other isssue you raise, but you have nothing to do with that. You fail to take note of the other editor's provocative and unilateral moves that evoked my sharp response at that time. IZAK (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You say: ""editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not" -- and note I state "should" and NOT "disqualified"". But here's the thing, they certainly SHOULD be involved in judgement - indeed they, like all users, should be encouraged to be so involved. If they are are to be discouraged because they might have biases, then equally pro-Jewish editors SHOULD NOT participate in judgements, since they might also have biases. You would be better to have retracted that remark rather than accuse me of of misrepresenting you and then wikilawyer the definition. Of course you can't disqualify people, but neither should you attempt to discourage them. Perhaps people who don't know much about a subject should be willing to listen to those who do, but people's ideological commitments, whether Jewish, atheist or Christian should not enter into it.--Doc^g 11:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Doc, while I agree with you in principle, that is not the rock-bottom reality of how things ultimately work in the long-run because editors who tend to write and contribute to the field/s they are educated and interested in will pretty quickly get to know and meet those editors who share their interests and will be able to assess and evaluate their level of expertise in that given common subject. As editors gather around topics to build up articles they get to know each other so that when they subsequently participate in AFDs or similar dialogues they are very clear about who is or is not competent in that subject and they will quickly latch on and kick up a storm if they see if non-competent editors suddenly appear to cause trouble. Indeed that is why there is the policy of WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY as well as WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY so that, for example, if mischief makers and malcontents wish to flex their muscles in AFDs for example, those editors who are more familiar and are known to be reliable with that subject can appeal to other admins or and are believed and the ones who are out to cause trouble by bad-faith editorial activity can be stopped. This is so simple and basic to everyday life on Wikipedia on a global and practical level that I am surprised that someone as sophisticated as you can say things like "... all users, should be encouraged to be so involved." Sure any editor is free to roam and enter into any far off vote, but how smart would it be for "all users" to do so with subjects they know nothing about causing absolute havoc as the blind try to lead the blind. From a user's page and edits it may be openly known and clear what he opposes and has no respect for the very subject he is involving himself in. For example, I am not a mathematician nor a medical doctor (but I love the subjects out of curiosity without ever having studied them formally) so that I would never in a thousand years dream of entering into serious discussions or AFDs about mathematics of medicine when I know that there are expert mathematicians who may even be university professors or medical experts who write text books involved in these discussions and if I were to suddenly pop in and give my penny's worth in an AFD or decide to nominate mathematics or medicine stubs for the most pious of policy reasons for deletion, I would be figuratively shoved out the door and probably humilaited by default for my ignorance and temerity at getting involved over my head with stuff I had no busines of going into in the first place. Now is there a Wikipedia policy that forbids my involvement? No. Because as you say we are a "community etc" but we are not a communist commune either and we are all expected to keep perspective and know who we are and know what we know and don't know and essentially know are place, just as when passngers get on a plane, they don't all jump to be the pilots. I think I am making my point and I am not Wikilawyering either. I am having a discussion with you without you throwing this or that policy guideline at me as some sort of barrier to normal human communucation. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just stop it. Atheists can be perfectly knowledgeable about religion, and believers can be perfectly ignorant. Atheists can grasp NPOV, when established members of certain wikiprojects can be quite dreadful pov-pushers. Now, I think I've had enough of this conversation.--Doc^g 07:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: ^demon

Hi Doc, I'll leave a short note at the RFA, but wanted to respond here in some detail. First, I don't really think that a non-admin could close an XFD of 700 categories, against overwhelming consensus, as delete. Theoretically it's true that non-admins can close XFD discussions, but in practice, they cannot close against consensus and are speedily reopened (and often warned) when they do.

There's other points, such as Walton's, that I also find compelling. But the issue for me is that I think we as a community underestimate the damage that low-civility admins inflict, even when they use their tools more or less inline with our standards. The same valid deletion does less damage kindly explained than rudely. Caprice has a lot more sting when it comes from someone who once earned a broad endorsement from the community i.e. passed an RFA.

I don't think this is trivial. I think it's perhaps the most broken part of our entire adminship culture. (In fact, I think such admins, more than the RFA crowd, is responsible for the culture of RFA. Call opposition petty, but it's always looked more like an immune system response to me.) Serious people -- and we need more serious people at Wikipedia -- don't like to be roughed up, pointlessly, by churlish technocrats, especially those who don't even know how to look up a reference or write a paragraph. I can't quantify the number of professors, grad students, doctors, enthusiasts, bibliophiles who came here intrigued -- excited even! -- encountered the rudeness behind the scenes; who decided, quietly, that it wasn't worth it. No retired banner, no parting speech, no good-bye notes on talk. Just one day their contributions stopped coming and nobody notices the Featured Articles that they never wrote.

I know because it was almost me, I just couldn't take the arrogance of some of the powerful here and their realpolitik games. And I think there's a lot of people like me in this world. I'm sorry this has gotten long, but my point is this: "net negative" doesn't just come from hitting Delete, Block, or Protect. It also comes from hitting Save Page. --JayHenry (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've seen more incivility caused at Rfa than prevented by it. In any case, I think the specific points made at RfA are wrong. Sure deleting an article Jimbo created isn't dreadfully clever, on the other hand, if one regularly deletes a lot of stuff, one will get some things spectacularly wrong, and this wasn't that spectacular, given Jimbo laughed it off and stated he'd have done the same thing. As for AfDs, non-admins can close them, and experienced ex-admins certainly can, if they do it badly they will get reversed (as here). Indeed saying "only admins" can close, leads to the type of arrogance by dint of office of which you rightly complain. Maybe demon isn't civil, but that's actually not the reason for much of the oposition, it seems to be a lot of it is people miffed at some decisions he made (deleting their silly categories) that they don't like. As I say, things that get reversed quickly are no worry on a wiki (particularly when they have zero impact on content). Far more worrying is the fact that those that scream that admins should be open to recall, and currently demonstrating why most admins say "em, no thanks".--Doc^g 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And this bit? "I can't quantify the number of professors, grad students, doctors, enthusiasts, bibliophiles who came here intrigued -- excited even! -- encountered the rudeness behind the scenes; who decided, quietly, that it wasn't worth it. No retired banner, no parting speech, no good-bye notes on talk. Just one day their contributions stopped coming and nobody notices the Featured Articles that they never wrote." Very difficult to quantify. Where should the balance be struck? Are grizzled old campaigners the best ones to judge this? Does the bias towards tech-savvy younger people contribute to this culture? Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Doc... you know you can't see the incivility that never happened :) I understand your point but I do think it cuts both ways. I don't agree with all the opposers either, but a lot of people are very specifically opposing for the rudeness/drama factor. (FWIW, my statement above about "only admins" is descriptive of the situation I see, not that which I'd prefer. It's decidedly not how I wished things worked, I certainly agree this attitude is part of the problem, and you'll never see me off wonking somewhere otherwise.) I think I've failed to communicate clearly because I actually completely agree a bad deletion or two is quickly undone -- I've supported lots of people who've seriously boned up -- it's the arrogance that can't be reverted. Your point about people opposing for deleting their silly categories is not interesting to me, because in fact nobody is opposing for this reason. --JayHenry (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Hello. We've been hard at work on the article since you last looked at it. Can you support the FA now, or do you have any further concerns? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman

Why have you unilaterally decided to delete this page when there is a on-going discussion on the talk page? There is no consensus. The appropriate avenue would be an AfD if that is your goal. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't use AfD for merges. And we routinely merge stuff like this.--Doc^g 18:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't a merge -- no text of this article was merged to the other article, the purpose of merging. This is a de facto AfD. And, importantly, there has been no consensus. Obviously I won't revert anymore and will use the dispute process to resolve this. But because there is no consensus, you will be in an edit war with others. This is tendentious when there is an ongoing, civil discussion. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow problematic articles to stand whilst we debate their propriety. We remove them, until/unless there's a consensus to keep them - a few politically motivated users on a talk page is not a consensus. Anyway, you are the only one edit warring.--Doc^g 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You may characterize us as "politically motivated" but that borders on a lack of civility. Problematic articles are all over Wikipedia and they are not deleted without the proper process of AfD. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I also take issue with the unfortunate characterization "politically motivated." I have had a hand in shepherding this article since its recreation after two speedies. I stayed with the page specifically to be sure we avoided most inferences and controversy. I believe we're doing a very fair job with a potentially nasty situation. Doc, I thought your characterizations of the winter recess rollback fiasco were heroic; I felt as if you'd encapsulated my feelings, and while I didn't say so at the time, I appreciated your bluntness. In this, I disagree with your characterization, and urge you to look at the page's edit history before you sling mud at strangers, even inadvertently. BusterD (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting is not deletion. The content remains for those working on the other article to access and use if they wish. It is a common mistake by people new to wikipedia to confuse the two. Special rules apply to BLPs anyway. The article will be dealt with shortly.--Doc^g 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not new. This is a de facto deletion. "We" don't do that. Please be sure to point me to where this is being resolved. I'll go ahead and post this to the bio dispute board. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tis already there.--Doc^g 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tis. A solution that reflects consensus. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh?--Doc^g 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect user meant "sunlight is good disinfectant." BTW, thank you for listing the article at AfD. I really appreciate this process, even though I oppose its intent. (I can't believe I just thanked someone for initiating a process with which I disagree; this is Wikipedia, after all). I've been studying deletion procedures this week under the watchful eyes of User:Jerry, so this will be more enjoyable to watch, even if it doesn't go my way. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Roy Oldham - Vandalism

Doc. I understand that living politicians can create diffculties for wiki. I am attempting to balance the above but every time i put some history about this man on the page its removed in favour of controversy. I understand that you have blocked the organiser of this vandalism before. he used to be gayboy-ds and has now registered as tameside-eye. You will notice from my changes to the article that i didnt remove his posts but just added to the article as a whole. Can you intervene. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegramsam123 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah, that again. Well, I've had well enough of that. I think you'll find my action has solved the problem this time.--Doc^g 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. The hatchet job has started again with the article "samuel roy oldham" I know that if i attempt to balance the article it will just be changed back again - telegramsam123

Doc. Well its been a couple of weeks of peace and quite. Im afraid the article has been put back on again. Would you intervene. Thanks - telegramsam123. 14 March 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegramsam123 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Humour

Thanks for making me laugh. :D Your user page is quite funny. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent admin intervention needed at the Hummus article

Hi Doc: My attention was drawn to the Talk:Hummus page, see Talk:Hummus#Hebrew/jewish/Israeli references and Talk:Hummus#RfC where some users are deploying the worst kind of blatant antisemitic and Anti-Zionist vitriol in violation of WP:HATE and WP:CIVIL, over a minor food article, yet, unbelievable. There are comments there that should be deleted on sight as well. Please check out that page and the violating editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting endorsements and cluttering up RFC pages

1. Please take a look at the very bottom of the RFC page and you'll see why I moved your lengthy comments to the Talk page. It's consistent with guidelines on this matter
2. Please do not delete endorsements you disagree with, as you did with mine. --Leifern (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is inconsistent with the guidelines to have a vote to close an ongoing RfC, to which people are still contributing. I gave reasons why that was wrong. Please do not remove them, as if it were simply a vote. That's why I reverted you.--Doc^g 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've had a chance to review what I'm referring to, I have to wonder why you're bending the truth:

1. I didn't remove your comments - I simply moved them to the place they belong. Again, see the very bottom of the page, where it's pretty clear where comments go.
2. This does not explain why you deleted my endorsement of the closure.--Leifern (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

Wow, I'm in complete agreement with you on a BLP issue. That's a bit rare... Although since this isn't what I would call a BLP-penumbra issue but a straight BLP issue I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman deletion review

Actually I took it to deletion review:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 1#Vicki Iseman

--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK.--Doc^g 12:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Doc, are you aware that every time you link to WP:BLP#1E you are now linking only to the WP:BIO guideline and NOT the WP:BLP policy? I think you're hurting your case every time you direct to the guideline rather than the stronger policy, and I think that had a bad effect on the AfD, weakening the non-Keep arguments. Due to some really unfortunate, dumb moves a few months back, the one-event subsection of WP:BLP was temporarily deleted and the shortcut was redirected to WP:BIO. I've posted about the problem at the top of the Iseman AfD discussion page. On the other hand, if you meant to link to WP:BIO, I apologize for wasting your time here, although I think linking to WP:BLP would be better. The WP:BLP link, by the way, is now WP:ONEEVENT. Confusing enough? Noroton (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that. The redirect needs changed back, as it has retrospectively changed hundreds of statements.--Doc^g 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was the result of an abortive attempt to move the wording to a guideline page WP:BIO. I agree that it really needs to be moved back, because this is policy not guideline, but perhaps not now in the middle of all the hurly burly. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It really is a horrendous mess. Best not to change it back until after this DRV is over. This makes the whole AfD problematic, in my view. Actually, if we change it back now, we run into the exact opposite problem -- editors who learned to link to the WP:BIO section using WP:BLP#1E would also be confused. I think the only solution ultimately is to make the WP:BLP#1E shortcut a redlink and let the WP:BIO section rely on the other shortcut available there. The problem seems to have started when Uncle G restored the section that was deleted at WP:BLP and didn't restore the redlink for some reason, although I may be misreading the diffs. The lesson here, I think, is that we should never, ever redirect a shortcut between policies. Ever. Just redlink it and start anew. The fact that "BLP" was in the shortcut that didn't go to WP:BLP made it even worse.Noroton (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Now I know why I couldn't find that link when I was Afd'ing a biographical article the other day. The things I learn when snooping through other people's talk pages.... Risker (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion with some suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for your assistance. MikeHobday (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Prince Henry

Someone keeps editing the page on prince henry to make it say various things about some isabelle. I am keeping an eye on it but am not an admin. Thanks for looking into it! --Camaeron (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Watching.--Doc^g 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Any idea which sock drawer AntHolnes (talk · contribs) belongs to? They protest innocence and seem to be confused by the block log summary. Your input would be appreciated. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. If he's a sock, it would be helpful for other admins to see which other user he is supposed to be a sock. Could you perhaps leave a note about the sockmaster on his talk page so that we can respond to his unblock request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea who's sock it is. But (on the balance of probabilities - which is what matters) it is the sock of some banned user. Do you disagree? It certainly quacks like a duck.--Doc^g 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I agree he has a familiarity with Wikipedia that only an experienced user should have, but unless we know WHICH banned user he is, how do we know this isn't just a legitimate use of sockpuppets (people are allowed multiple accounts for non-disruptive reasons) or they may be a user who has edited under an IP for a long time and just recently registered an account. If we don't have any specific person he is a sock of, I am inclined to unblock since he has not misbehaved in any way that I can tell... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you genuinely thing that (on the balance of probabilities) he isn't the sock of some banned user or another, then by all means unblock. But do you? Requiring that we know which one is just silly. If he's probably the sock of one of them then that's enough. But, as I say, if you think it is more likely that's he's the genuine newbie he claims to be, who just got an urge to troll on Jimmy's talk page and a miraculous knowledge of wikipedia, and knew how to log out, find my user page, and post as an anon (see the history), if you think that's more likely that him being the sock of a banned user, then by all means unblock, I won't object. But do you?--Doc^g 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will unblock, and I have never made the claim that he was a miraculous newbie. I said he may be a well experienced user which has a legitimate reason to be editing under a new account. He can always be reblocked as soon as he starts acting poorly.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you want to, no objection.--Doc^g 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JW talk page

Sorry about that. For some reason I thought that that BCST had removed more from the talk page than he did. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I wasn'tgoing to fight you over it ;) --Doc^g 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

As you can see here, full protect has no point when admins ignore the requirement to discuss. If you would semi the article instead then other established editors could help maintain it. When you full-protect, we cannot. Wjhonson (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP Hicks

Hello, Doc. May I bother you with a request? Having compressed the article Tom Hicks and eliminated gratuitous detail from the "Liverpool F.C." section by incorporating discarded text into History of Liverpool F.C., I decided to review the bulk of the article and was dismayed to notice some inadequately (un)sourced claims with a conspicuous BLP dimension. Would you mind examining the article to determine whether there are more subtle BLP violations that "new eyes" might not overlook? Regards, SoLando (Talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed a large amount of unreferenced and non-neutral negative material.--Doc^g 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It really is appreciated. SoLando (Talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Lonsdale

I had been meaning to expand that article with the secondary sources that I listed in the "Further reading" section. (I was not the initial creator of the article, but noticed it and did some initial sourcing). Could you restore it and stub it so that I can utilize the secondary sources that I had worked to compile, or restore it and send it to WP:AfD? Cirt (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively could you restore it to my userspace, and I will work on it and check back with you before doing anything else/moving it, and I'll put some sort of tag on it that says it is "not an article"? (can't find that template/tag at the moment) Cirt (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I agree with the BLP deletion. Just start from scratch and make it more NPOV, instead of just an article about him and Scientology. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See my reply at Nick (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I'm not an admin, but I'd like to get at the sources I had worked to compile from the deleted article. I understand the rationale that it's best to start from scratch, I had actually not written that much at all of the article's text itself, but I did work to compile secondary sources in the "Further reading" section, and if at all possible I'd rather not have to compile them again and format them. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will e-mail you the sources. But I'm still not convinced that a article could be written here. This was a horrible article about a recently dead person and validly deleted under BLP. A collection of newspaper article recording nasty stuff is not a proper use of wikipedia.--Doc^g 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I won't even post it into my userspace area until I have done all I think I can do, then if you are not satisfied with it, I will request speedy deletion by user. Again, I must stress that I did not start the article, I did not add that much text to the article, but I did add secondary sources to the "Further reading" section. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed {{db-user}} on my userspace Sandbox, it can be deleted and I'll work offline for a while. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Nick (talk · contribs) did it. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I created the article Shawn Lonsdale from scratch, using material cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Please provide input if you feel like it, and if requested to do so I will nominate it for deletion myself. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I have redirected this to Scientology and Me. Lonsdale only seems notable for his appearance in one episode of a weekly BBC documentary. It is bad enough that we have an article (Scientology and Me) on a single episode of a multi-topic news programme, without a "biography" of a bit player. This guy simply isn't notable enough, and I suggest that you might want to merge anything that is relevant with that article. WP:BLP means we tread carefully with bios of the recently dead, and using one of them to have a go at scientology isn't on. We've sufficient articles debating Scientology.--Doc^g 09:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I noticed your redirect. Could I ask you to undo the redirect solely so that I can send the article to WP:AfD myself, as I had promised previously if one editor did not think the new version of the article I created asserts notability? This way we could solicit/gain some community input on notability, and assess whether or not the community thinks that a merge/redirect to Scientology and Me is the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • AfD is NOT used for determining merge/redirect decisions. One should only go there is something needs deleting.--Doc^g 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Right, but your redirect was essentially a delete because you did not merge any info, and you also mentioned in your edit summary and in comments the talk page and and WP:BLPN that you questioned the notability of the subject matter. And AfD is a good place to gain input from the community on notability. And please, no need to use CAPS. Cirt (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Would you mind if I undo the redirect and send the article straight to WP:AfD? I would like to gain input from the community on the notability of the article. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I may have worded my comments poorly, I want to start an AfD not to have the community weigh in on a redirect, but rather on the notability of the article. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Doc glasgow (talk · contribs), I know you are trying to do the right thing here, and I will defer to whatever decision you decide - that's why I did not undo your redirect outright but came here to your talkpage first. I also want to apologize if I worded something unclear above. But I want to go to AfD to have the community give input on the article's notability. But again, I will defer to your decision on that. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well since you haven't responded (no worries) I will assume that you are opposed to the idea of undoing the redirect and sending the article to WP:AfD. If that's not the case, feel free to message my talk page. I made a good faith attempt to recreate the article, and I had not written any of the article-text for the previous version, just provided secondary sources in a list in a "Further reading" section. Too bad it didn't work out, but that 2nd version contained all the info I could really find in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, just couldn't really find much more info about him that didn't focus on his role as a Scientology critic. Thanks for your input in all this. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think this merits a biography. You are entitled to disagree, but you are unlikely to convince me otherwise. However, I don't get the final word, and you are entitled to contest this on the talk page of the article and see what others think, if indeed anyone cares. However, afd is really only a place to go when you want something deleted - you don't, and I'm happy with a redirect. But as I say, you are entitled to make your case on the article's talk page, where it is possible that consensus will go with you and not me. Thanks for your patience and civility here.--Doc^g 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is awkward

I just closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Justjihad as defaulting to allow the username, and found you'd blocked the user when I went to notify them of the change. Seems we've had a collision. How do we resolve this? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really can't understand how that's a helpful username, and the account seems to be a POV pusher. But, I will not kick up a fuss if someone thinks that it is more helpful to the project to allow it to continue. I'd just be a bit surprised myself. doesn't look like this guy is going to fit in somehow [4]--Doc^g 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your block takes into account more than just the username, I gather, which is perfectly sensible. My attention was originally drawn by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Username RFC in need of closing; I'll post there and see if any further input comes up. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I will not fight it if I'm reversed by consensus somewhere.--Doc^g 01:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Jimmy Wales article talk page

Hi. You've protected the Jimmy Wales article's talk page for the reason of "m (Protected Talk:Jimmy Wales: trolling [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])". Would you be prepared to reconsider that protection? Thanks. AntHolnes (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't actually protected. You should still be able to edit it. It is only semi-protected, so it is only IPs and brand new users who can't edit - and all we're getting from them is trolling.--Doc^g 13:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding. Attached is a link [5] to a screenshot showing

• your "Special Contributions" page. Highlighted are the lines where the Jimmy Wales and Rachel Marsden talk pages were protected
• the log of the Jimmy Wales talk page showing the same thing
• the log of the Rachel Marsden talk page showing the same thing
• my Wikipedia interface showing I can't edit the Wikipedia main page, which is expected, but can edit a randomly chosen article page and talk page, but can't edit the Jimmy Wales and Rachel Marsden talk pages as there is no "Edit this page" tab, but I can edit other talk pages.

I logged off and checked what the pages look like for an anonymous visitor. They can't edit those two talk pages either. Thanks for looking AntHolnes (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, You edited your initial response [6] to the current one [7] while I was posting my reply to your previous one, so my reply doesn't make full sense any more. Thanks for updating your reply with more detail. Could you give some examples of the trolling you're referring to and also the section of the Protection Policy page that justifies or allows the protection of a talk page for that reason. Thanks for any clarification. AntHolnes (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I could be referring to single purpose accounts created specifically to troll on this article. Like yours.--Doc^g 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am trolling but I can understand and appreciate that you have a different point of view. Thanks for clarifying your reasons and responding to my question. AntHolnes (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sonny

Sorry on the "son" crack; from the writing style I suspect you're my age or so. Old enough to remember college age as a fond memory, but young enough to be worried about midlife crisis. Cheers. You're ace on BLPs--I just want to make sure that THIS one is treated to the letter like any other BLP. We have to completely treat Jimmy's absolutely as if he had no idea who he was in regards to Wikipedia. Not one shred of anything extra that a run of the mill BLP would not get. Or the media and trolls will have a field day. Lawrence § t/e 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the end of my college time wasn't that long ago, but since I spent far too long there, the start of it is a vague memory from a time when we hated Thatcher and thought George Michael was cool (well almost). Actually, since all we have is a short affair with a minor celebrity and some media repeats of some fuzzy claims about expenses liberality, I am very relaxed in saying I'd remove this from any other bio. So, if I fail to do argue for that here, then I would be treating Wales differently.--Doc^g 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I remember fondly voting against Thatcher's cohort on our side, Ronnie, for all the good it did. If the coverage doesn't abate or die off, you think your views would change? Lawrence § t/e 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a fine line between what is news - this is (so wikinews it) - and what is significant for a biography - too soon to tell really. Unless something dramatic happens (resignation, lawsuit etc) it is fairly difficult to tell whether this is a 7 day (minor - non-headline) news cycle, or something of the type of significance that would go in an extended obituary 40 years from now. Given that uncertainly, I think we need to err on the side of caution with a BLP. The problem here is that people are confusing sources/verifiability (which we have) with encyclopaedic relevance (which is at least debatable). Sleeping with someone isn't notable (there are exceptions). We don't list affairs (normally). Being accused, by a disgruntled ex-employee, of living it up on expenses isn't notable. These things are only notable if they have consequences. The only consequences here (so far) are re-hashes of an AP story - is that in itself notable? Probably not, since many things cause wikipedia stories at this (still fairly low) media interest level. Will anyone outside Wikipedia care in 2 weeks? Dunno.--Doc^g 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more clear

Your reversion of my re-insertion of the talk page material at Rachel Mardsen has the following edit summary: "this is a BLP - stop it or I gets a blocking)" I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here- please use clear language, especially when throwing the word "blocking" around.Sethie (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a biographical article. Do not replace comments that are a mixture of personal attacks and trolling, and certainly not useful discussion of the article content. If you keep replacing such off-topic rubbish, you may be blocked for disruption.--Doc^g 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank you for finally being clear at least, your first edit summary was complete gibberish.

The time signatures don't lie.... you responded to me AFTER your revert... so I am not trusting that you are actually interested in dialogue.

Your revert btw removed my raising of this issue on the talk page. So not only are you insisting that you get your way, you are removing discussion complaining about your way.

If you are threatening to ban me, fine, I will back off, you win.... this type of behavior being why wikipedia is in the spotlight- abuse of power.

Seriously... it is my belief that you've just put one more nail in the coffin. Sethie (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We are far more in the spotlight for allowing nastiness about living people. it is quite simple, talk pages are for discussing the content of the article and seeking consensus on what should be in it. Anything else can be removed. Especially personal attacks.--Doc^g 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You can justify your actions however you wish. Here are the facts:

Section I

Paragraph 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 ARE about the article.

So is paragraph 4- with some pretty direct language... btw which is sourced

Paragraph 6 is a PA towards wikipedia, not RM

Paragraph 13 is a violation of AGF

Section II

Paragraph 1 is violation of AGF and PA towards various users

Paragraph 2 is clearly about the article

Paragraph 3 Felinious monks commentary.

The majority of the passages 14/18 you are fighting to stay out ARE about this article.

There are no defamations of RM so BLP has nothing to do with this.

I am wondering if you can see the irony here- the PA's are about wikipedia, and abuses or power on wikipedia.... and you are using your power to remove them, and in the process removing a lot of very pertinent contents about the article?

Of course the RM page is not the place to discuss the virtues or vices of wikipedia as a whole and you are really throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.... and sadly in the process you are proving the case for the detractors and weakening wikipedia. :( Sethie (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sethie, I have trouble seeing any of that as being substantial content helping the article. I would have not removed it but I really don't see any compelling reason to include it either. If there are any specific issues you think should be discussed that were mentioned there you are of course welcome to bring them up. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now all we are looking as is talk page material being removed, with a few critical remarks of wikipedia... with false reasoning- BLP vios, that the material was only trolling and PA's... all this with the threat of a block for trying to undo unjustified removal of talk page discussions. Sethie (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with you that it didn't need to be removed but I really don't see any advantage to having it there. Again, if you have specific issues related to the page in question feel free to bring that up. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your are very diplomatic and disarming JoshuaZ, which I salute. The only question that remains is- given that it was removed under false pretenses, given that you don't see a need for that removal, given that talk pages as a rule are not censored (save extreme cases), what do you see now as the best course of action, in terms of wiki policies, fairness and respect for the majority of that discussion, which were legit and about the page? Sethie (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was under "false pretenses" disagreeing with something being a reason doesn't make it under false pretenses. In any event, unless there's something in the material that matters in particular I suggest you let the matter drop. If there is a specific issue that you think needs to be addressed then feel free to bring it up. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc has said it was per blp concerns and per trolling/PA's. I have shown that there is no blp concerns in that material and that the trolling/PA issues are the minority of the text, so you would be correct I supppse- we can call just plain old inaccuracy.

While I appreciate that for you, content is the issue, it is not an issue for me, at all. You are welcome to bring that up as often as you like.

For me what we are discussing is is an Admin, who gave innacurate reasons for an action, and then threatened a block when his actions where challenged- while being unwilling to discuss his actions.

So we agree there is no reason for that material to be removed, Removing material is highly irregular, especially whole sections. Per these guidelines [[8]] and [[9]] I understand if you or Doc wish to remove certain PORTIONS of these comments (though I think it is unnecesary- and in this case makes wikipedia look bad)... however I would ask Doc to not remove comments about a talk page again.

You did not answer my question as to what you felt was the best course of action, now. I await justifcation for the removal, otherwise I will put it back. Thanks! Sethie (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kurt Turkulney

Hello.

Just letting you know, I've converted your 31 hour block for disruption to indefinite. This user has been found to be a sockpuppet of Ottawaman as proven by checkuser.

Thank you for your vigilance. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lir's unban request

You should be aware that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN conerning the banning of Lir. It's unfortunate that the matter isn't presented there. __meco (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is this arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org? Can't see it on the list page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David Motari

No problem; I wanted to speedy it myself, but I just couldn't find any basis in WP:CSD on which to do so. I forgot about badlydrawnjeff. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Motari David

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Motari David. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.163.106 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPP discussion on BLP1E

Doc, could you give your two cents over there? There are a number of people proposing to take BLP1E out of BLP, again. FCYTravis (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't get my head round that discussion at all. I've always been fairly uninterested in policy pages, I'd rather just take action. I see no clear proposal on that page whatsoever.--Doc^g 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Please block TheMiddleWay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sockpuppet of Justjihad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continue to watch the Mortgage article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea about this case I'm afraid.--Doc^g 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

You've indicated various places (mostly on Wikback if I recall correctly) that you don't see why the edits that were made to the Rachel Marsden article following Jimbo's request were problematic per BLP. I've created the essay Wikipedia:Zero-sum BLP, in part to try to explain what the problem is, though it's a general principle that applies to more cases than just this one. (in short, keep in mind that Tony Backhurst is also a living person, even if we don't have an article about him) —Random832 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris sock tag was reverted

Please respond at this place. Sorry, Doc. Lawrence § t/e 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Doc, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AC

Well, if the AC won't do it's job maybe we should just set up a better alternative. Lawrence § t/e 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's job being? Oh yes, what you want it to do.--Doc^g 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's job being to answer questions brought to it, not punt it back. The community clearly wants the AC's role to be more broadly taken. The AC doesn't want that, from what I see. If the AC won't do what the community wants, the community can do what it needs. If that means scrubbing the AC, or making a different one, it can. The AC has no power but what we collectively allow it. Lawrence § t/e 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree with most of that. Arbcom are the community's final stage in dispute resolution. It is OK for arbcom to fail to conclude, or fail to reach a majority, such is life. The status quo then stays. But we need "closure", whether we like the close or not. Arbcom must be final in contentious cases. Else we are into votes for banning. If they are not up for that, then they are not fit for purpose. The community is entitle to replace arbcom with something else - the community is sovereign. But meantime we can't have opinion polls overturning the supreme court.--Doc^g 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop by to thank you for boldly choosing to throw another truckload of fuel onto the inferno. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Either I don't understand the point of analogy and thanks, or you are trolling. I'll assume the first.--Doc^g 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say, congrats for having the guts to unblock after the premature block, especially in the face of that community discussion. I'm glad you and Coren were able to work things out, by all accounts, though I haven't found that discussion yet. I too thought your action might throw fuel on the fire, but it seems that things are still fairly calm. Maybe discussion and/or calls for calm do work sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion was on a super-sekret IRC channel ;) --Doc^g 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards

I've tossed an award in your direction. I'm ignorant of the formatting so there isnt a timestamp. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated I'll append the timestamp. --Doc^g 13:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If she did not want to see it, she should have kept her foolish mouth shut. You need to give a valid reason why her mouth vomit does not belong. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smad29 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Springer

I see no reason the synopsis should not be used, I wrote to Stuart Lee and got his permission to use it in the article, I've said it can be edited, just not to insert meaningless fluff, or to previous editors, not to edit inserting bias and the such TR (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued on your talk page.--Doc^g 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: China

Hi Doc,

I understand your concerns, and I seriously recommend you look through the entire history of the reason why we had to place a long term full protection. I would suggest starting with this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou and this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JackyAustine. This problem is, or at least was, that this particular individual has been building a supply of sleeper socks since 2006. The checkuser may have dug up 30 to 40 of them, but we believe that we only discovered the tip of the iceberg. Several sysops, including myself, have attempted many options before I locked down the article. A few of them being, indef blocking the socks, using checkuser to find the socks, etc. and this had been going on for months and months and months upon months. It was frustrating. So we came down to two options, lock down the page until the individual is no longer interested in Wikipedia and trying to push his POV with his socks, or range block several IP ranges. As option 2 would take out half a city, the full protection option was our only option. Granted, it was indef. but this was done so that we can make sure that the individual gets the message that his actions will not be tolerated and that we do not provide the individual an avenue to continue his disruption.

I currently have no objections to your actions in unprotecting the article, but calling it ridiculous, when it seems you have not looked into the entire history of the situation, is completely uncalled for.

Anyways, I have other matters to attend to and I believe you do to.

Regards,

nat.utoronto 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, yes, another thing, could you set the protection level at semi, if possible. nat.utoronto 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any gain in allowing a vandal to win by locking an article permanently, better just keep reverting till he gets bored. We can semi-protect for a few hours at a time if there is persistant vandalism, I see none right now.--Doc^g 02:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

History of deleted BCBot opt-out

Is there any way to restore the history of that page? It contains diffs for at least two of BC's examples of personal attacks, in which he calls two different established editors (myself being the last) "vandals." With the arbcom pending now, this could be important for those of us who will be compiling a list of diffs. Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 02:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It will likely be restored for the duration of the arbitration case (if it still opens tomorrow as scheduled) and then redeleted. Doc was right to speedy delete the user page, while Luna Santin was right to decline the deletion request for the talk page, as discussion exists there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc - would you mind annotating the close at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out? At the moment there is no indication why the close shows that the page was speedy deleted but the page is still there and the page itself doesn't bear a tag or anything to show this either. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd better ask whoever undeleted it, since they didn't bother to inform me. I have no real idea why my closure was undone.--Doc^g 09:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your closure hasn't been undone. That should be obvious from the deletion log: "33 revisions restored: per request at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence, for evidence gathering purposes". I have to ask, Doc, did you even bother looking at the deletion log (four clicks away) before saying: "I have no real idea why my closure was undone." Sure, it might have been polite to inform you, but anyone around here who knows how the place works looks in the deletion log summary first to see what the reason is for undeletion. Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is it isn't really for me to annotate the close, and I'm not sure what it would achieve.--Doc^g 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

BLPs

You are WPs resident BLP fanatic, I would appreciate your opinion on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Don_Murphy because you are the person most likely to get the deletion reason, something that sails far above the heads of many others. Viridae^Talk 02:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)