Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crash Underride (talk | contribs) at 06:06, 15 August 2016 (→‎Please remove the personal attack on me above: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The current date and time is 19 August 2024 T 08:49 UTC.

If you are here about an arbitration matter, please - wherever possible - post instead on the appropriate arbitration page to keep discussion centralised.


User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home
Talk Page
Workshop
Site Map
Userboxes
Edits
Email

Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.

Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia.

If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic.
If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place.



You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

University of Kansas "Ancient Central America" course assignment

This is just a heads-up to let you know that I'm once again having students create Wikipedia entries for a course this semester. I've posted the information for them here:

User_talk:Hoopes#Wikipedia_Assignments_for_.22Topics_in_Archaeology:_Ancient_Central_America.22_at_KU_.28Spring_2016.29

Dwapara Yuga / Yoekteshwar

Hi Doug, I'm Robert ( RobCZ ) and I think the last correction must have been five years ago on the particular year we are in according to this interpretation of Yoekteshwar. Swami Yoekteshwar wrote his Holy Science in 194 Dwapara ( 1894 ), thus currently we are in 316 Dwapara. Kind regards Robert, Amsterdam, Holland

Blurry Photos Podcast

Hi Doug,

Thank you for your feedback. Is the article I submitted being considered for publication on Wiki or just rejected?

High Heeled Jacq (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #221

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Kurakchay

Hi Doug, I recently stumbled across this article (^), and, not to my surprise, it seems as if there's an insane amount of WP:OR going on there. So far, I got my hands on the source of Firouzeh Mostashari — she doesn't back the material up in remotely the way the creator of the article wished it to be. Given that its about Azerbaijan, a nation that was created in 1918 by the Soviets, and not a single book/article/etc is published without government consent (and, is equally important, known for openly denying and/or deforming crucial historical events, e.g. the Armenian Genocide, Iranian history, etc.) this should be digged out properly. Now I wonder; apparantly, the other main reference the user in question, written by a certain "Professor Johannes Rau" (Johaness Rau. The Nagorno-karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. A brief historical outline. Berlin: Verlag-Koester, 2008. ISBN 978-3-89574-655-0) is one of them that I can't get my hands on. I searched the professor up and it seems he's openly implying pseudo-history (its to the point of it being hilarious, actually), and, obviously, he's lauded for that by Azerbaijan. Now my question is; could you see what his education is in particular, or could you confirm just in general that we can't use him as a reference for a historical matter? If thats namely indeed the case, then we might actually have to redirect the article or even AFD it, as its basically telling about a historical treaty, that basically never happened in such a way as described. Thanks much. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: Took a while but when I realised Peter Lang had published him I found his bio."Johannes Rau, born in the former Autonomous Republic of the Volga Germans, studied at the Moscow State University in Moscow, where he received his doctorate. After his habilitation at the Russian Academy of Sciences, he became head of the Department of Sociology and Philosophy in Astana and received simultaneously the Professor degree in Moscow awarded. The author published his scientific works (philosophy, sociology, culturology, Islam and Islamism, Conflict Studies) in Russian, German, English, Arabic and Italian in Moscow, Berlin, Vienna, Astana, Cairo, London, Rome and other cities. He is currently Emeritus in Germany and an active member of the Scientific Forum of International Security at the Staff College (Hamburg)."[1] The "scientific forum" is linked [http://www.fueakbw.de/en/network/nationale-partner/wifis/ here. Signing late. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much Doug. There's one more "title" that I'd like to know more about and which is currently literally being spammed on multiple low-profile articles --> Encyclopedic dictionary of Azerbaijan toponyms. In two volumes. Volume I. Baku: "East-West". 2007. ISBN 978-9952-34-155-3. User "Freedom Wolfs" is adding this book on virtually every village/minor city/town etc article of Azerbaijan, and to me and several other users, this all seems highly suspicious, mainly with our concerns being that there is definetely something behind it (GF was assumed on multiple occassions, but this is way too obvious). Not only is, "according" to the "book", everyone occupied in all these places, with "husbandry", "gardening", and "animal keeping" (not even joking!), also whole etymology sections of millenia old place names are suddenly Turkified by said user while citing this so-called book.
I did some research myself and in fact, I can't find literally anything about it. In fact, it seemed to be as if the whole book doesn't even exist. And even if it does (if you can find it?) I highly doubt that its actually WP:RS. Are you able to tell more about this? If our concerns are indeed right, then quite a large rv-spree needs to be initiated I'm afraid. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

check my texts

Hi! Here Wikirictor - ?our recent co-operation motivated me quite a lot - just created: Boomplaas Cave, I would be grateful if You could check and correct my texts as i am a non native speaker - Thanks and All the best...Wikirictor (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma

Just to let you know, User:Zbrabs is the PR representative for Kappa Sigma (indicated in a note he left on my page) and a rather new editor. I've been talking to him on his talk page and I've restored the controversies a couple of times, he seems to be OK with trying to find references to indicate what he personally knows. I'd appreciate another set of experienced eyes on his edits. There is a lot of useful stuff he has added to some of the related pages like the list of Kappa Sigma chapters, but it will be a *long* time before removing the COI note on the Kappa Sigma page will be appropriate.Naraht (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Naraht Thanks, that's why I added the COI tag. He still needs to understand that there's stuff that needs independent reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to chime in. :)Naraht (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdness on Elf article Talk, re Flarn2006

Back on 2015-10-04, user Flarn2006 added a section in all-caps with seemingly incomprehensible statements. You reverted it the next day [2] and questioned the user about it on their user Talk page, who then replied that it was just a joke and that it could be removed. Then, 2016-06-26/27 (8 months later) Flarn2006 reädded the reverted section [3] (including the previous time stamp) with a random "hi" inserted and signed in another section, whilst replacing a Talk section which had been added by another user after the previous incident (as well as a comment by you, yourself, to another user in another Talk section, and some edits to templates). Not sure what Flarn2006 motives are in all of this. — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imeriki al-Shimoni: Thanks very much for this. It's not on my watchlist anymore so I'd missed it. I've reverted and poted to the editor's talk page asking him why he should be allowed to continue to edit. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Doug Weller concerning Gamaliel's resignation

Done here. Take this elsewhere if you must. --NeilN talk to me 01:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 26 May 2016 in this diff you claim "[Gamaliel has] resigned from the WMDC." Was this claim made on the basis information provided to you specifically or the group of active arbitrators via group email or other communal communication?

It's reasonable to assume statements made on a case page, particularly those by an active arbitrator, are relevant to the case when considering the repeated removal by arbitrators and clerks on the same case and case talk pages statements deemed "out of scope" or "irrelevant", a sample of which follows:

Do you feel the inaccurate information you relayed regarding Gamaliel's resignation was relevant to the outcome of the case and if not, what motivated you to include it on a case page subject to frequent removal of irrelevant material?

Do you agree the role of arbitrator obligates you to respond promptly and civilly to queries about your Wikipedia-related actions and to justify them when needed, as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT?

Finally, I note the banner at the top of this page instructs editors inquiring about arbitration matters to post instead to the relevant arbitration page. I apologize for my inability to comply as your colleagues offer conflicting guidance directing editors to comment here rather than the relevant arbitration page, making compliance with both instructions impossible.

I await your response and thank you in advance. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • [talk page stalker] I think we're done pondering and discussing this. I understand you are a new editor, so I don't know how much I need to explain. That the statement on the case page was relevant to the case may well be a given, but that does not mean that an arbitrator is required to disclose everything pertaining to that statement. By its very nature, ArbCom receives private information, and discusses things privately. That also means that not every question asked by outside parties can always be answered. I'm sure you appreciate and understand this. Thank you for your inquiry, Drmies (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked, and in any case the question wasn't addressed to you. If and how Doug Weller chooses to respond is his decision. Kindly respect that. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured this would happen to me if I were to inquire here instead of on the ArbCom page. I hate to see new editors bullied by unaccountable authorities, though, so I'll just chime in that I agree that DrMies should go away and let Doug Weller respond (or not). DrMies has shown a poor grasp of civility and conflict-of-interest, and so his input here is not especially helpful. Auerbachkeller (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's you again, Auerbachkeller; why am I not surprised. Are you actually here to edit? I am reminded of a relevant but way-too-long joke about a bear and a hunter, but I'm way too polite to tell it on an arb's talk page. James J. Lambden, asked and answered, even if it's not the answer you like; kindly respect that. Though of course Doug is free to add whatever he wants to add when the sun comes up in his timezone. Now, how many times are y'all going to ask the same question? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A key point, however, is that Drmies has created a lot of excellent content and very little hot air. The purpose of Wikipedia precisely aligns with what Drmies does—a situation strongly contrasted with those with external agendas such as Gamergate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnuniq--I like the gift as I like the giver, and I appreciate this coming from you. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Milo Yiannopoulos on a motorcycle, Doc Mies. Are you actually here to edit? I find it hard to believe you wrote that. You're a tenured professor, right, dottore? (If only on the strength of your contributions to this here site...) How about looking up the non-cultist definition of "edit?" You may find it differing substantially from its perverted brother on here. Mr. Auerbach has every right to ask questions, given that one of your Arbcom brethren threatened his livelihood, however ineffectively. Looking at his "edit count" will show you that he's "edited" quite a bit in article space, in addition to keeping the wiki wolves at bay. Oh, and Johnuniq, as for Drmies' fabulous record of creating excellent content, I'm still waiting for him to make good on his promise of fleshing out that stub he started on eminent French writer Karim Miské. DracoE 04:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Draco, come on--what do I need to do, put the hamster back on my talk page? I will if you want me to. That author of yours, you could have written him up yourself by now; in the meantime, I had carpets to vacuum, laundry to do, and Twitter wars to wage. And I know there are users who don't make a lot of article edits and are still valuable member of the community; there are quite a few of them, actually. Much love to you and yours, Drmies (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't a hamster, Doc. Just so you know, I was quite cross with you for putting that picture of him on your talk page at the time, following a private conversation between the two of us. But then I thought, "Hey, it's the Doc, your fellow appreciator of good writers as well as 'a bear of very little brain, and long words bother him,' so why not be nice about it and let it slide." As for "that author of mine" (how dismissive is that?), you should know by now that I'm no longer willing to throw my magic former hack dust over people's BLPs on here unless I know for certain they want to have their lives' achievements effed with by you and other less benevolent contributors until this here site goes up in some well-deserved flames. Which brings us to this point in time. You see, I have a theory as to why you felt compelled to mess with Mr Auerbach's article. It's not all that flattering, so I'll keep it to myself, for now. But please don't go down the road of your former ArbCom colleague (Hi there, Gamaliel. Thanks for blocking me on Twitter for implying you should apologize to David Auerbach for trying to mess with his livelihood. Too bad you haven't got magic admin powers over there.) and let the vindictive side of your overall bodacious being get the better of you in this case. I see Doug Weller has been back on here since the start of this rigmarole, while busily avoiding his own talk page. Oh well, reap what you sow. Yay, bacon. Wheeeeeeee! DracoE 04:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what you or Johnuniq have contributed to this thread besides animosity. I'm no more informed now than I would have been if no one responded. This was not helpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question posed to me above: I look forward to editing more once Wikipedia is rid of bullying cliques of administrators and their lickspittles. When do you expect that will be? I've been trying to accelerate the date but change is hard.

I personally am more interested in the excellent content Drmies has deleted. I will now bow out to give Doug space to answer the questions posed him, whose answers I remain interested in. Auerbachkeller (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure you're interested in that content, because it Speaks of Great Things You Did. Unfortunately it lacks secondary sourcing, which means that there is no good encyclopedic reason to include the content. Wikipedia is not a resume or a repository of links; that you are deemed notable doesn't mean that every single thing you ever published should be mentioned in the article. WP:FART speaks quite eloquently to that. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The premise behind this section is totally flawed. Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a forum to interrogate people. What Doug Weller may have said about the participation of a now-retired editor in a project outside the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia has no relevance for the encyclopedia, and pursuing action in an area where real-world harassment is known to have occurred is extremely misguided at best. WP:ADMINACCT concerns the need to account for an action that used administrator tools and has nothing to do with a comment made by an arbitrator. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Doug will have a problem answering the simple questions posed above. It is pretty funny to see someone say a statement made by an Arbcom member, during a case, is somehow less able to be questioned than an admin using tools on whatever. (Also the editor in question is not retired, FYI.) Arkon (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond sometime this afternoon. As anyone can see, I was only online a couple of times yesterday and then for only a 1 to 5 minutes each time. And last night, when I was watching Masterchef Australia on tv and looking at my watchlist I thought I'd opened a diff and accidentally reverted, damned iPads, too small for me at times. I had a tiring day yesterday and didn't sleep well and certainly don't want to reply until my brain is working again properly, and my morning is taken up by real life. Doug Weller talk 05:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My longest standing interest or hobby is archaeology. I've done a bit of formal study, attended field schools, and participated in quite a few digs. One thing that gets drilled into you is that "context is everything". And of course not just in archaeology. Rogue Wave (band) did a lovely video about it.[4]
So what's the context of this question? Someone incidentally noting that Gamaliel is still part of WMDC and remembering what I said on a talk page months ago and wondering about the discrepancy? Clearly not. The context is an editor hounding not just Gamaliel but other editors on and off-Wiki. My response or non-response is likely to be used as part of this hounding and it's hard to misinterpret "no comment". I'll add that my very minor encounters with the press in the past have left me jaded, and then no one else was involved. So no, I'm not going to answer to the questions. It doesn't matter who asks them, they're Auerbach's questions and the same context. Nor do I intend to respond further - further responses aren't likely to give closure to anyone. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. The context is your standing as a member of Arbcom. It's now apparent the community was deceived by your actions. I and other editors are attempting to determine whether that deception was intentional or unintentional.
Let me restate this point to be clear: it's your actions, not anyone else's, called into question. You're under no obligation to respond as none of us are obliged to edit whatsoever, but lack of response must be interpreted in light of WP:ADMINACCT. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please enforce the word limits

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence#Please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a drafter but mentioned it. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the personal attack on me above

I kindly request that you remove the unsubstantiated personal attack on me above, the passage beginning "The context is..." and ending "this hounding and." There is no need to pollute your "No comment" response, which I appreciate, with this sort of uncivil smearing. I have been told by an administrator that I will be blocked should I attempt to remove it, so I would appreciate it if you (or anyone) would do so. You may bring me up on official disciplinary charges relating to whatever it is you think I may have done, but that's orthogonal to the issue here. Thank you. Auerbachkeller (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of hounding are not personal attacks. We see them not infrequently at WP:ANI and they are not removed as personal attacks. --NeilN talk to me 02:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per "Having mailed arbcom-l five times without response" and plenty of hypocritical posts on Twitter I won't repeat per WP:NPA, "hounding" is a very apt description (though with some of the attacks on Twitter, I'm inclined to say an understatement). I strongly recommend dropping it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced contributors can see that the wording in question is not a personal attack. While exceptions are made for extreme cases, in general no action is taken regarding off-wiki hounding because policing the Internet is beyond the jurisdiction of Wikipedia, and most people don't want to spend time analyzing flame wars. On the other hand, on-wiki hounding will lead to sanctions. Admins and arbs are supposed to take a lot of misguided commentary, but after a certain point it will be stopped. It is acknowledged that those supporting the hounding of particular individuals will want to use Wikipedia as part of their campaign, but it will eventually be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a personal attack. These are examples of personal attacks. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN and Johnuniq, you are both clearly hounding me. Please cut it out. Auerbachkeller (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being facetious rarely works out well here. --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, can you please stop pointing out facts and policy to Auerbachkeller? You're clearly hounding them. lmao :D Please read that dripping in sarcasm. CrashUnderride 06:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&oldid=734567341"