User talk:Doc glasgow/Jun 07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Your block of User:62 (number) looks to me to have been premature. One pagemove does not an indefinite block make. -- 12:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolling vandalism does - create a new account and behave.--Docg 12:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
'Trolling vandalism'? What do you mean? Where? The guy just looked like a contributor who liked to mess about to me, not a dedicated vandal. -- 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Evie Greene[edit]

That can't be a negative can it? Unless she was black with white hair (in which case she has no problem with notability). Also I wouldn't be sure that's public domain, the photographer could still be alive and the NPG claims the sweat of their brow makes it their copyright anyway. Yomanganitalk 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Galleries always falsely claim copyright - and the chance of a professional photographer being alive 92 years after the photograph was taken are virtually non-existent. Hm, as to the 'negative' - check the source and see oif you can find a better description.--Docg 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It says "whole-plate glass negative". I have no idea what that means.
And "Artist: Bassano (floruit 1850s-1979)" - gosh! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I meant he could still have been alive 70 years ago (which apparently he was). I assume the picture is a positive taken from the negative in their collection. Yomanganitalk 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bassano & Vandyke Studios, London were stll photographing "girls in pearls" for County Life Magazine well into the 1970s - just one of the useless things I happen to know. Giano 15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See Bassano and Alexander Bassano. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Em, Ok, to be on the safe-side I'll replace it. There are plenty more out there.--Docg 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm informed that "photographs taken in the UK prior to 1957 had copyright expire 50 years after being taken"--Docg 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This work appears to have been published under the corporate name; under UK law that means the work is treated as if the author had died prior to publication. That gives it 70 years from the date of publication, which would put expiration in 1985 (assuming it was published in 1915, which may not be true). Given a reasonable set of assumptions, the image is public domain. One can concoct all sorts of scenarios in which it is not, but most of those require making improbable assumptions, and one is generally not required to do that. I'm going to (in my role as a Commons admin) call this one presumptively public domain, and recommend that it not be deleted unless someone provides positive evidence that it is not. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

She died in 1917, so it must date to some time before then; on that basis, we ought to be OK from 1987 anyway. We probably ought to crop the ©NPG though. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If you don't alter your tone [1] people will start to say you are one of those nasty snappy editors like that deadful Giano who is so rude to people [2]. Giano 09:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul Dacre[edit]

Was the deletion and recreation really merited? There was some unsourced contentious material that had already been removed - by reverting it to a much earlier stub, you seem to have undone a reasonable amount of expansion and copyediting of his career section (although I can't check how much). --McGeddon 10:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There were any number of BLP violations in the current text - and the history was full of libels. It seemed the easiest thing to do. If I'd removed all the BLP violations you would have been left with little more than you currently have. There are other reasons for my actions, which I can't really go into.--Docg 10:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay - I can't remember what exactly the expanded career section said, but if it was sneakily libellous, that's fair enough. And you seem to be helping out getting the article recategorised and copyedited. Thanks. --McGeddon 11:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chapman University[edit]

On the Chapman University page, you removed an unreferenced assertion that the DOE had found Chapman in violation of FERPA back in 2002. As you will see from the discussion page, I am attempting to remain neutral and wiki-proper. I have been contacted by someone who claims to have a copy of a redacted letter sent by the DOE to Chapman indicating that they were indeed in violation of FERPA back in 2002. My concern is that the redactions eliminate most of the identifying characteristics of the involved school. The letter, however, does indicate the date and the name of the addressee, "Dr. Doti." Jim Doti is the President of Chapman and has been since well before this alleged violation.

Do you think that a source document like this would be valid, enough to suffice as a cite?

Also, do you think that this "FERPA" section even deserves inclusion in a school's article at all?


A claim of a redacted letter is certainly NOT a reliable source. I'm not getting involved in the subject, all I did was to remove an uncited assertions. If you think more needs excluded, you are free to use your own judgement. The section may well not belong in the article at all. If disputes arise, then discuss it with others. I'm afraid I know nothing about the subject.--Docg 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Doc, I agree that a 'claim' of such a letter wouldn't be reliable at all - but what about the actual letter itself? BlackberryLaw 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:RS - letters generally constitute original reseach--Docg 22:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I have done. I see no consensus there. So?--Docg 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So? So what? I dunno - I was just pointing you in the direction of it!--Vintagekits 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User comments[edit]

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

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

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

Read him again. He's being sarcastic. You are the one defending WR.--Docg 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Was he? I'm the one giving out personal info, and I have never defended the outing of individuals on WR or elsewhere. That I defend the right to link to non attacking pages on WR is surely my right, SqueakBox 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. But don't then go being a drama-queen on ANI. Stop it.--Docg 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? That was days ago and I thought it was resolved, SqueakBox 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not a BLP vio[edit]

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

I have reported my actions (and yours) to arbcom, and invited them to consider them.--Docg 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Am aware of that. Can you point me to the part of BLP policy that says that these are violations. I will be happy to keep it deleted if there is clear volation but I don't believe that exists, meaning you took unilateral action outside of policy which considering the current events is incredibly disruptive. ViridaeTalk 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Get a grip. You are still process wonking. They are biographies of living people - they report only a negative incident. To see hy that's unsuitable for wikipedia, read what a dozen people have said on the DRV. If you still don't get it, I'll see you at arbcom.--Docg 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The negative incident is not any reflection on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. And I am aware of the DRV, having participated in it. ViridaeTalk 01:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You closed a DRV in which you had participated?--Docg 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If you had stopped to read the close reason, you would see why. ViridaeTalk 01:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I did. But the reason was invalid. The deleting admin does not get a final say when many others have called for the articles to remain deleted. In any case, DRV does not trump BLP. And if you believe that the DRV reversed an A7. Then just consider that I redeleted per WP:BLP - which is a separate reason. If you don't like it - then file an RfC. DRV cannot undo a BLP deletion.--Docg 01:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot (accurately) cite why this IS a BLP violation. DRV is about deletion policy (not article content) so notability arguments do not hold weight. The deleting admin agreed she had mistakenly violated policy and hence asked me to perform the afd listing. I did that on procedural grounds. On the subject of BLP. The article IS Sourced, it is NOT overly critical of anyone involved - in fact it is not critical at all and as such is not a BLP violation - stop bending the rules for your own agenda, without behaviour like that this ongoing mess would never have happened, yet you insist on adding fuel to the fire. ViridaeTalk 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have restored your DRV close - I should not have reverted that, it was a misjudgement. However, I judge these articles to be a violation of WP:BLP and have deleted them as such. If you wish to dispute my judgement, then methods are open to you.--Docg 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"The methods" will be taken when I have time. ViridaeTalk 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Since the articles were deleted I didn't see the point. I never imagined they'd be undeleted.--Docg 02:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So you are willing to let process run only if it is going to get the result you want...? ViridaeTalk 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. Naturally, process matters less that product. Anyway, I'm off to bed.--Docg 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If the DRV looked (in your opinion) that it was going to undelete the article would you have closed it ie if it wasn't going to get the result you wanted would you have still let it run? You cannot dismiss process out of hand - its exactly that that caused this mess. ViridaeTalk 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on process. You closed the DRV on your interpretation of some aspect of process that I don't understand and probably wouldn't agree with. I deleted the articles on my interpretation of policy - that you evidently don't agree with. We disagree. Either drop it or take it to dispute resolution.--Docg 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you prefer first? RfC or should we just assume it'll go nowhere and open a new ArbCom case? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Your move I believe. I suspect an RfC will go as badly for you as the last one did. I do quite well in them normally.--Docg 02:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I think the RfC with me went exactly as expected. It showed no consensus for the madness you promote, as well as demonstrating that heavy-handed disruptiveness doesn't sit well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I think it showed people are on the whole more concerned with the encyclopedia being what it can be than silly notions of process. Look, these article are dead. The battle is over. You want another round, then bring it on. But you will lose.--Docg 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that. The articles are only dead because you have to be continually disruptivwe to make it so. You have no argument, so you resort to disruption. That's a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this. As I've said, if you have so little empathy that you can't even see that there's an argument on the other side, then there is no point in me talking to you.--Docg 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary - I see the other side, I just don't see how it's relevant to act as if your ethical standard trumps anyone else. We're an encyclopedia, Doc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Go away, please. I wish to talk with you no longer. Stay off my talk page.--Docg 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that consensus built. You have to realize that if everyone's challenging you, you just might be wrong and you ought to give process a chance. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent edits[edit]

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

Sorry, not aware what citation you mean. Feel free to restore it. Basically, what I'm trying to do is not have biographies when all be have is an incident in someone's early life. Record the incident if it is notabile - but not as a bio.--Docg 17:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Collective authorship?[edit]

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

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

messages from the real world[edit]

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

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

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

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

Where does it come in that we can't go through process or modify articles to be under the name of the notable incident, they must be speedied with no recourse? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably because people are too thick to realise that deleting the history is part of process because old version links get spread around as "the article in Wikipedia". That's why the history needs to be zapped as well, and editors start again from scratch - David Gerard 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't stop "stub, protect, discuss" occuring in the case of blatant violations - in fact, given the notable nature of at least one of the recent deletions, that would have been the best way of dealing with it. Its certainly the way OFFICE dealt with things on a regular basis. ViridaeTalk 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Schmidt....changes.....???[edit]

Hey....if you're gonna change this to a story about the case, you better be SURE that your facts are straight.... Legal issues can arise about untrue statements or incomplete stories that depict something that isn't. You have a one-sided story written from articles from people who sided with the DeBoers'.....or from a father that Anna hasn't had contact with since 2006.....crocodyle 07:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All I was doing was moving the information from a biography to an article about the case. I didn't look to carefully at whether the information was NPOV or not. Probably best if you raise concerns on the article's talk page.--Docg 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat MFD[edit]

Re [3], you're wrong about that, the policy actually says to take it to an MFD if contested. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we please have a flame war and argument about this that will drag on for several weeks? Um ... not? Newyorkbrad 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, someone reversed me. How irregular.--Docg 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


An affair in which you are interested is being discussed here. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. If others have been as polite as you and notified me, before draging me into this, it would have been nice. Much appreciated.--Docg 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet[edit]

While I realise you were technically within your rights to change the article to a redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets, I don't feel it was entirely appropriate to do so given the contentious nature of the prior deletion discussion (shown to you by Vintagekits above). Changing to a redirect is functionally comparable to removing the content (yes I know it stays in the page history, but that isn't the point) and it seems to me that you're acting unilaterally and disregarding the lack of consensus on this issue. I have no particular opinion on or involvement in this case, other than having closed the original AfD, but I feel that consensus should be respected. A strawpoll on the future of the article might be a good idea here, to gauge consensus. WaltonAssistance! 13:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to abide by consensus. But what is really needed is proper discussion. We've had none. All we've had is people jumping up and down on the talk page shouting. I've repeatedly asked for people to explain what in the article, aside from the fact of the name of the holder of a baronetcy, is notable and encyclopedic. Those objecting to a redirection have never even attempted to answer my question. If they were willing to explain what encyclopedic information was being lost by a merge - then we could discuss whether the article should be kept undirected, or whether that information could be included on the baronet page. The afd was no consensus to delete - so that doesn't really help us. A poll is pointless - that's just numbers. I will not participate in that. Please, if you could get those resisting any change to explain their objection in terms of content rather that perceived process abuses, that yould be helpful. I for one am open to persuasion.--Docg 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out to User:Walton monarchist89 that Doc alone was not responsible for the page redirect. Those wishing to illustrate the subjects notability, with or without references, were unable to do so. The debate had been fruitless and circular for some time. Those arguing for a page redirect had not only logic on their side but also Wikipedia policy denoting notability. The page has not been deleted, and all relevant details concerning the subject are now recorded at his entry on the Arbuthnot Baronets page, where they are easily found with those of his relations - all neatly together for the ease of the researcher. The decision to move the page was the correct one, although it has been somewhat masked by the hysterical accusations from certain members of the community who fail to understand that wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia not a social register. Giano 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not here to get involved in the principles of this dispute - I have no personal opinion on whether baronets are notable by hereditary right. What I object to is the idea that, because no one's put forward a reason for keeping that you find persuasive, you seem willing to disregard their opinion. I still don't understand why you object to a poll; it may be "just numbers" but the numbers represent the opinions of Wikipedians in good standing, given in good faith. All such opinions should be given equal weight. WaltonAssistance! 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
To address Giano's point, it's oxymoronic to talk about demonstrating notability "with or without references"; the references themselves prove notability. The primary criterion of WP:BIO is that anyone who has been the subject of "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" is, ipso facto, notable. But that's just my opinion, and is less important than trying to establish a consensus. WaltonAssistance! 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"All such opinions should be given equal weight". Em, no? Some opinions will be more persuasive than others. Consensus is not a vote, it is about persuasion. And it is not that I don't find their arguments persuasive - that they've repeatedly refused to offer any argument why the individual is notable beyond the title he holds. Believe me, I've asked - and I was/am willing to be persuaded.--Docg 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What on earth is "oxymoronic" supposed to mean? More to the point the page was not notable, a redirect was best - all logical debate agreed. We can't all be hanging arownd in limbo for ever. You had your chance to make a point there - you did not. End of story. Giano 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oxymoronic = self-contradictory, a contradiction in terms. Sorry if that inadvertently came across as uncivil, I just meant that it's self-contradictory to talk about failing to demonstrate notability "with or without references". The presence of the references, in itself, establishes notability per WP:BIO. But anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing that the article should be saved. I'm just arguing that proper process should be followed, and everyone's opinion should be taken into account. Walton 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It was. We debated. One side put up reasons - the other side sulked.--Docg 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely their reasoning in the discussion was based on two principles?
  • "All baronets are notable because of their title". I don't necessarily agree with that - they should pass WP:BIO independently - but it's still a valid point of view, given in good faith.
  • "This person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, therefore they pass WP:BIO." I'd say that's a sound reason for keeping the article, although it depends on how strictly you interpret WP:BIO.
You say consensus is about "persuasion" but who is meant to be persuaded? I can tell you that, in closing that AfD (or any other), I was not looking to be "persuaded" either way. If I had had any kind of opinion about the article, I would have refrained from closing the AfD and left it to someone who could be neutral. I followed my usual practice; I looked at the arguments given, excluded those given in bad faith or for obviously trivial reasons (of which there weren't any that I can recall, on that particular AfD), and counted up those remaining on either side. Since there wasn't a clear majority for Delete, I closed it as No consensus. Admins have a certain amount of leeway, but IMO no admin should say "Right, the keep/delete voters were outnumbered, but they persuaded me". That's little more than authoritarianism. WaltonAssistance! 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that's judgement - which is what we choose admins to exercise. Monkeys and bots can do bean counting. But anyway, that's really irrelevant - no-one is contesting that the afd was without consensus. The afd has nothign to do with it. If you have a subsutantive argument against redirection, please feel free to make it - ON THE TALK PAGE OF THE ARTICLE!--Docg 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the presumption should be that everyone who has had "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" can/should have an article? Blimey. I can feel my inclusionist bones turning deletionist all of a sudden. Surely we should be asking that they are, you know, notable, not that the pass the earthworm-high test of being mentioned more than a couple of times in a mainstream publication? By your test, I am notable. Believe me I am nothing of the sort. And I mean that most sincerely, folks. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what a cetain Lady is saying here [4] ALoan about you, or should I say M'Lord? Giano 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, BLP Guru...[edit]

Howdy Doc,

So, as I've considered the implications of the new stricter moral rectitude being enforced upon biographies of living people, there is one class of individuals close to my crippled heart: people like Lorenzo Odone. He happens to have been the subject of a film, but he did not choose his fate. There are those in the community of disabled people who cringe at the "soft exploitation" of poster children like Mr. Odone, whose well-meaning parents have arguably turned their child into more a "cause" than "person," to the possible detriment of the public's perceptions of disabled folks in general, at the very least. Insofar as WP's biography of Odone perpetuates the notion that he is a victim of his disease, and is nothing more (ie., he has no life outside of that identity), WP contributes to a mentality that disability right's advocates find objectionable, and very likely does a disservice to Mr. Odone, simplifying his life into a one-dimensional biography, concerned only with his disease.

In the above paragraph, I've taken a "hard-line" -- I really don't know what to do with articles about disabled folks in light of BLP. I do know that, if WP is to re-examine the role it plays in bringing unwelcome attention to people who did not choose to sacrifice their privacy, then disabled individuals are another category than will need re-imagining. No biography offends the spirit of WP:COATRACK more than Terri Schiavo. Because American politicians choose to battle over her, WP must have an article on the subject; but, there is no denying that, as a biography, the article cannot do justice to her personhood. She's famous as a body people argued over, in a societal disgrace that far transcended Wikipedia. The moral rectitude BLP requires would suggest WP no longer wishes to take part in such things -- so what do we do with her "biography" now?

I bring this to your attention because I know you're one of those hammering out the scope of BLP. I don't have the time to patrol talk-pages and raise this issue; I'm also too impassioned on disability questions to discuss them with my preferred level of detachment. I just wanted to mention the problem, to ensure that it would injected into the ongoing dialogues as necessary, and to get your thoughts, also. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we've in a moral quagmire here. But at least we now acknowledging we are in it, in rather than trying to count sources, measure Ghit and to hell with the consequences. For the most part, [{WP:V]] and WP:NPOV see as through - and if we've got shitty biographies it reflects on us than on the subject. My main beef is with subjects of very low notability, just enough interest to ensure that we can't get a consensus to delete, but not enough interest to ensure a fair, monitored article. These cases matter because we'll be the top Goggle hit on the name - indeed sometime we are hosting the only biography - and people will believe our content because "it's an encyclopedia". In the Terri Schiavo case, the moral stench is not ours, but that of the sources themselves. And I suspect, although I could be wrong, that our article may be slightly more 'objective' than whatever other partisan source a reader might encounter. Wikipedia and BLP can't really sort out the intrinsic coatrack there. The redemption of sordid humanity is unfortunately beyond us. That needs a different type of messiah from our God-King. But let me see what I can do with the other article.--Docg 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Merged. All relevant information preserved.--Docg 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Every time I think i'm figuring out where your line is, you do something like this. This decision in particular seems nonsensical to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What decision? Merging content? Why is that bad? We don't have the sources at the moment to write a full article - certainly not a rounded biography. I merged all the referenced material to another article which already had the same information (unreferenced). What the heck is your problem? --Docg 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, we do and did. I dunno why you're getting nasty here - it's a serious question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Civility, please... Georgewilliamherbert 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope you weren't directing that at me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Haven't you ever seen an article merged into another one before? There are instructions here: Wikipedia:Merge.
The only thing we know about this fellow relates to his medical condition and the innovative treatment his parents found for it, the quest for which was turned into a film. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, don't talk to me as if I'm new here. And we know plenty, and he's highly noteworthy, and there's no problems with the article as it existed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As much as I disagree with much of what Tony has said in the past about BLP, I have to agre with this merge it consolodiates the relevant information in the one place, and removes an article about someone whos only claim to fame is their disease and their parents handling of it. ViridaeTalk 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
okay. So why not merge with his parents, as an alternative? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That would have been another option. Although I suspect he's more notable for his involvement with the discease that for his relations. However, the section I merged to names his parents and links to their article. So it isn't hard for someone to find all our information. But if you want to reorganise it - go ahead.--Docg 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting articles![edit]

BLP is not an acceptable reason to arbitrarily go around deleting valid articles. You cannot just delete a decent article without giving any sort of notice when the article is in no way defamatory to the subject. violet/riga (t) 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Abhilasha Jeyarajah in particular has no reason for deletion. It is fully sourced and does not fall under any part of BLP or NOT as you claim. violet/riga (t) 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I was on-line and you have reversed me without any type of discussion? That's unacceptable. I review all my deletions on request. But wheel warring is not ever justifiable. Please reverse yourself and then we can discuss this.--Docg 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not how it works. You did something I see as wrong, I reversed it to the status quo, then discussions can happen. violet/riga (t) 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Arbcom have condemned wheel waring and defined it as "reversing another admin's action without discussion". I can find the diff if you want. I repeat, please reverse yourself, and then I'll be happy to discuss this. I am quite reasonable, and always willing to think again.--Docg 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In your deletion summary you clearly state that articles can be recreated with sources. That has been done in those cases. In the others you have not provided a clear enough reason for deletion, removing content that has existed here in a referenced form for over two years. Wheel wars are bad, I agree, but undoing an invalid deletion (as I see it) is not wrong. I am more than willing to discuss this with you but cannot see the point in deleting the articles again. violet/riga (t) 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please undo these restorations as reasonably requested and we'll discuss where to go from there. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the buttinski, but that's a ridiculous and not useful definition of wheel warring. Bold/revert/discuss is a perfectly legitimate editing technique. Friday (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Abcom say differently [5]--Docg 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comment at User talk:Violetriga if you haven't already. --YFB ¿ 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm commenting here.--Docg 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(belatedly) Sorry, it was intended for both of you (and everyone else involved) but I didn't want to double post it for fear of being accused of spamming. --YFB ¿ 02:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think they worded that poorly. You shouldn't generally undo admin actions lightly, but to say it's never appropriate is overstating the case. Friday (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the policy clearly states "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it" - I have undone an action once and not repeated it. violet/riga (t) 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Take it up with them. They have reiterated it in more than one case since. Anyway, think about it. I make mistakes, but so does any admin. One admin sees an article as a BLP violation, maybe even libelous or harmful - he deletes it. Another admin takes a differnet view. Either could be wrong. Which is better, for the potentially harmful article to be deleted or undeleted for a few hours whilst they discuss it? Obviously deletion. In this case I was on-line. If violetriga had been courteous enough to come and ask me to think again - I might have has the opportunity either to reconsider or to convince her there is a problem. If we disagreed, we could ask a third admin to take a look. If the consensus is no BLP issue - then we go through the deletion process. Much better than wheel waring. I suspect that why arbcom has been inclined to desysop wheel warriors. bold-revert-discuss is for editing not deletion - and it certainly not for BLP matters.--Docg 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Articles that have existed for over two years in their current form, which are referenced and contain no private details other than those provided in those references should not be deleted without discussion. I am willing to discuss this and even, should it happen, agree with your viewpoint, but to delete articles that people have working on without any comment at all is more discourteous than undoing a deletion before discussing it. violet/riga (t) 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You clearly didn't look at some of the articles you undeleted. There are serious referencing problems with all the articles you have undeleted. Kian_and_Remee_Hodgson where are the references for that article for instance ? Nick 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A quick look at the "References" section shows two appropriate references. violet/riga (t) 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree, the sources are inappropriate and the article lacks referencing. Looking at these sources, it's pretty clear the article shouldn't have been created at all as there is a lack of evidence as to the notability of the subjects. Nick 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Notability is an afd issue, and as such it should have gone there. ViridaeTalk 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies to Doc for replying to a third party on his talk page...
You don't agree with the article being there? Well an AFD might prove fruitful. As it is the article is referenced (I just added a third one) and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. Until a consensual decision is made, of course. violet/riga (t) 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
We need an article on mixed twins. A putative "biography" of this particular pair of girls is not that. I have moved and reworked the article, at Mixed twins. FCYTravis 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but that clearly wasn't the way to go about it. Your way worked for more successfully. (Ie BOLD REVERT DISCUSS or just an afd). ViridaeTalk 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The phenomenon itself is clearly encyclopedic. The names, ages and family histories of every single pair of children who happen to be mixed twins are not encyclopedic in the least. FCYTravis 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I agree with that. I just don't agree with the isruptive way it was first achieved. (as I said, I like your handling - if you look at my edit history for today, you will see I have done the same thihng for another case. (Or see User talk:JzG) ViridaeTalk 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The problem is that we treat everything as if it somehow has to be addressed biographically. No, we don't. We don't learn anything enlightening about mixed twins by hearing that there's these mixed twins from Nottinghamshire who like Teletubbies... right now. What about 10 years from now - are we still going to say they like Teletubbies? Nonsensical, problematic to keep updated and hopelessly uninformative. Not to mention the issue of attaching these specific names to the concept of "mixed twins" for all of eternity. It's not necessary. We should tell readers what "mixed twins" are, explain the biology behind the phenomenon and note that there are many recorded cases of its occurrence. That's it. FCYTravis 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And I see it the exact opposite - we have the ability to offer information on specific issues, and we should embrace that. An article on significant mixed twins by name is very helpful to readers who want to know about them - directing them to a general article on mixed twins is completely useless to the reader. And, really, and this is not a judgment on you nor is it supposed to be, assuming being attached to the concept of mixed twins as unnecessary and something to be avoided is a really bad standard to make - by disassociating, are we saying being a mixed twin is a negative thing? I don't think we're trying to say that, but our activity states otherwise. I'm convinced we are not thinking this through at all. Heads before hearts, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Heads and hearts are part of the same decision-making process, Jeff. Rationality is based on belief and feeling; cognition and affect. Decisions made without empathy are unlikely to be fully rational. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, we're offering information that there are mixed twins, that there is a specific biological reason for their existence and that there are numerous cases known. What on Earth does it tell us about mixed twins to have an article that says this particular set of mixed twins likes Teletubbies? How on Earth is it encyclopedic to say that two toddlers like Teletubbies? That was the sum total of the article - their names, their parents' names, a big block of information about the biology of mixed twins, and a quote that said "they like Teletubbies." So in 10 years, do we still say they like Teletubbies? Do we say "they used to like Teletubbies" and put that on the Internet for all eternity? For Christ's sake, that's not a biography and it doesn't belong located at these two kids' names for the rest of the history of the universe. FCYTravis 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It provides information about a certain set of mixed twins. you're not explaining why it would be good/bad/indifferent for the "history of the universe," since it already is thanks to our ability to write from sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Our mission is not to document and detail the lives of every set of mixed twins which ever existed. The fact that they liked Teletubbies as toddlers is not interesting, enlightening or of any permanent interest. It makes no contribution whatsoever to the sum total of human knowledge. Once they hit school age, it's a downright liability, in fact - I suppose you're not too old to remember the fact that schoolkids can be downright vicious. I can just imagine their schoolmates googling them, finding them on Wikipedia and going "OMG LOL U LIKE TELETUBBIES UR ON TEH WEBS LOOOL." I refuse to believe that Wikipedia should be responsible for that. If you want Jeffopedia to document the fact that two-year-old kids like Teletubbies and apples, feel free to start that project. This is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of every child ever born who happened to make the newspaper for 5 minutes. FCYTravis 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, here I am trying to have a dialogue with you, and you decide to go into the worthless "jeffopedia" nonsense again. no one's saying "document the lives of every set of mixed twins" here. as someone who went through sheer hell in high school, I understand what you're saying fine - but Wikipedia is not an experiment in ethics. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
To say that Wikipedia is not an experiment in ethics is not to say that Wikipedia shouldn't have any ethics. If you believe that, Jeff, then you've lost me irrevocably. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, we're not an experiment in ethics. There's no experiment about it - we are a project whose mission is of the highest ethical calibre - the free compilation and dissemination of the sum total of human knowledge. Ethics pervades everything we do. If this project does not consider ethics, it is not worthy of existing. It is a fact that there two children named Bob and Joe Doe who are mixed race twins who live in Nottinghamshire and who like apples and Teletubbies. Please, Jeff, tell me how that's encyclopedic. Tell me what that contributes to the sum total of human knowledge. Tell me why we need that article. Don't tell me we can have the article - fine, it can be sourced. Tell me instead why people 50 years from now need to know the names of this particular set of fraternal twins and require that we forever record the fact that at the age of two, they liked apples and Teletubbies. What is the purpose of that information? (BTW, I totally feel you - I went through living hell as well, in middle school) -- FCYTravis 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it encyclopedic? It's been worthy of attention from plenty of people, that's how. And that worth doesn't disappear. Why are people 50 years from now going to need to know about Catch and Release? Either we're the sum total of human knowledge or we're not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been worthy of temporary attention for 15 minutes when it hit the news. Please document the claim that there's any sort of ongoing, lasting interest in this case. Please document what this biography will look like in 10 years - "They liked Teletubbies and apples at the age of two, but they're now in elementary school." What are we supposed to say about them? The lives of these children are not encyclopedic. (I apologize for, and have struck, the jeffopedia remark.) FCYTravis 03:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Second part first, I can't predict the future. First part, notability doesn't disappear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is nothing more to the article than their names, their birthday, their parents' names and the fact that they like Teletubbies and apples, then pretty clearly nobody's actually interested in their lives. FCYTravis 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop relying on the mention of the Teletubbies to justify deletion - it was only one small part of the article and should not have been there. You have created a new article that is encyclopedic (you say as much yourself) based on what existed; with the article deleted you could not have done that and we would have lost good content. I believe that we should include the names of those widely reported in the media as they add to the article and help people to understand the concept further, but little more than the names will be required. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If the sum total of a putative "biographical article" is "these people exist," that's a clue that we shouldn't have a biographical article on them, but that they should be merged into something else. Without the "apples and Teletubbies" references, the sum total of the article on these two girls was that they existed. FCYTravis 08:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume therefore that you agree with what I have been saying as this is not a counter-argument against my points. violet/riga (t) 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article as it stands now is encyclopedic. It wasn't before. FCYTravis 08:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
How many non-encyclopedic stubs have you turned into worthwhile articles? Without the previous content you could not have made this worthy article, thus proving that the wiki process works where arbitrary deletions do not. violet/riga (t) 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The wiki process works only when people pay attention. The problem is that we don't pay attention to what our ~200,000+ biographies of living people say. If it takes a few speedy deletions to wake people up and begin the process of improving this area of the encyclopedia, it will have been but a small price to pay. Nobody was volunteering to clean them up before. FCYTravis 09:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If a justifiable reason can be presented then fair enough but to delete articles without comment simply based on one person's view of notability is very bad. violet/riga (t) 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but you couldn't even be bothered asking me what my reason was, before you twaled my logs and overrode my judgement calls with your own. That's what I find so insulting.--Docg 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


(remove indent)
I'm sorry that you are insulted, but I am insulted to have two articles I created simply deleted on the whim of an editor who happens to think it's not worthwhile keeping them and does not have the courtesy to mention it anywhere. I'm just glad that I noticed it! violet/riga (t) 09:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Agggh. Ugh. I didn't realise *you* had created them. That means not only did you wheel war with me.......but you had a conflict of interests. Yuck!--Docg 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - you didn't think of the people whose work you were deleting. And as I said I created two of them, if I hadn't then I probably wouldn't have noticed your deletions and been able to save several other articles. And revise your definition of "wheel war" as you are not using the correct one as detailed on the policy page - you are merely saying it to cause offence and it is not a civil approach to communications. violet/riga (t) 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm using arbcom's definition - which I've asked them to reiterate. I'm also still wondering how you are defending you conflict of interests in these cases. You should not act as an administrator in cases where you have an editorial interest. That's pretty basic.--Docg 09:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I was undoing an act of vandalism, as I would for any article I come across. Not vandalism you say? Well I'm sorry but the removal of valid content is vandalism. And "where you have an editorial interest" applies to every single article by definition. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The last person who called my BLP removals vandalism got trashed in an RfC. Be very careful here. At the moment, I'm trying to avoid another arbcom case. You are digging yourself in deeper. First you revert without discussion. Then you admit you created the articles and thus have a conflict of interests. Now you are assuming bad faith and engaging in personal attacks. This is not so good.--Docg 09:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You started with the incivility, accusations of wheel-warring (by a non-policy definition), and threats. By the given definition you can be accused of vandalism. You instigated the problems here and I have simply negated your misguided deletions.
I am still waiting for you to discuss, on a per-article basis, the reasons you have for deletion. Please put them forward so that I can consider them and respond. violet/riga (t) 10:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverse yourself and we talk civilly. I am very reasonable when met with rationality. Good faith removals of material are NEVER vandalism.--Docg 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Then it would appear that we are at a stalemate as you refuse to communicate and I refuse to allow useful content to be deleted without any reason other than a link to WP:BLP. You are stalling the process. As for the accusation of vandalism it depends entirely on how your actions are viewed. An analogy would be an artist painting a beautiful picture on a wall - some see it as art, others as graffiti (an act of vandalism). Perhaps you meant well but that does not counteract such a misjudgement. It's easy to throw around "vandal" and "wheel warrior" as accusations and avoid properly supporting your case - how can I judge if your edits were of good faith if you have not given details of your thinking? violet/riga (t) 10:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering your recent propensity for deleting articles without discussion on wiki, is it entirely suprising people are less than happy to discuss reversing your action?. ViridaeTalk 09:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Double redirectsa[edit]

You didnt fix the Sir William redirects when you redirected the page, not good for our readers. I have fixed them but if you are doing this to lost of articles please remember not to neglect the double redirects, SqueakBox 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing them. Keep up the good work.--Docg 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Mae He[edit]

Can you explain your deletion of Anna Mae He? You deleted it with summary "WP:BLP not this", but it did not meet any criterion for speedy deletion and contains almost 20 citations from reliable sources. I am also notifying the creator, HongQiGong (talk · contribs), since you did not bother to do that. Prolog 10:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the way to do it. I will review my deletion and get back to you later today. Must go to work now.--Docg 10:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The article in question was not a biography of Anna Mae He - it was a massively overdetailed blow-by-blow recounting of the custody battle surrounding her. There could potentially be an article written about the custody dispute, as it made it all the way to SCOTUS (cert. denied) but if there is, it doesn't belong at "Anna Mae He." I will, upon request, temporarily userfy the information in the article to allow for appropriate merging - potentially to a broader article on child custody disputes. FCYTravis 10:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with that solution.--Docg 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
So it could be moved to a name that suits the incident itself, and worked on further. Unilateral deletion is still not justified. This is purely an editorial question that does not require use of admin tools, and sources indicate this incident is notable on its own. Since there are no BLP issues, I would rather just undelete the article than leave the content hanging around on someone's userspace. Prolog 10:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In other words go through the correct wiki process of evolving an article into something that fits our policies (BLP included) without one person choosing to remove a great amount of content, destroying other people's work and generally causing ill feeling. violet/riga (t) 10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, in other words, we delete first and ask questions later when it comes to living people. There is absolutely no need to have a 20-paragraph article documenting every single twist and turn in the court case over this poor girl's life. Wikipedia is not CourtTV. FCYTravis 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be forgetting what you are arguing with me about. I never said that all the content of these articles is worthy of inclusion, just that the content needs to be reviewed and the important aspects retained where necessary. And I'm sorry but you do not have the sole decision on this - we are working on a collaborative project here and things should be discussed first without destroying content. Not everyone is an admin and has access to the article histories so you are immediately cutting out the majority of the editing community from the discussions. You said "There could potentially be an article...", well deleting it makes it much harder for that to happen. violet/riga (t) 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem, where do you think the important aspects should be included? We'd need to start by establishing the degree of importance in respect of that target article, of course, but the sources should help with that. A suggestion for a target would be good, I can help with getting whatever content and sources are needed to do that. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If a consensus develops here (or elsewhere) as to how to dispose of this article. I've no objections to you undeleting the history as required.--Docg 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anna Mae He. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss it here. You might even want to participate. You might get your facts straight at any rate.--Docg 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected my factual error. Would your response to a request have included a prompt undeletion, or an OK for soemone else to undelete, with or without an immediate AfD listing? If not, then DREV is IMO the palce to discuss the matter. I really think that starting such a discussion by deleting the article is a mistake, and i wish that you wouldn't do that in future. I presume that you disagree, from your previous statements and actions. DES (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in that assumption. Policy supports stiff action wrt BLP. This battle is finally ending - I've felt like a lone voice on BLP for a while - but the wheels are moving now. Wikipedia is finally changing. No more tolerance for this stuff, process be damned.--Docg 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow - I'm the one that created the article, but I wasn't the one that eventually developed it take on such a "blow-by-blow" structure. This article is one in many in my long list of things to work on and I just haven't gotten around to it yet. It may be that the article ought to be renamed to be one about the court case or the custody battle, but the incident is notable as it reached a state Supreme Court, with plenty of press coverage, and the Chinese Embassy even sent a representative to listen in on the court cases. The article is not an attack page and it's not a hoax page - would you please consider restoring the article and commenting in its Talk page how it might be improved? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh - Now people are voting to endorse the deletion because they think the article is "ethically bankrupt" or that it's "sad" that the person's custody battle is documented, or a number of reasons like notability that should really be discussed at an AfD. The article has sources and the incident has appeared in a lot of news media. I really wish a discussion about what's wrong with the article had taken place first. One "endorse" voter at the DRV has even said "fuck policy". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is disgusting to see how Doc glasgow, potentially, an umeployed crackpot, deletes this important article. BTW, Anna Mae He Act has passed Tennessee House vote.

Advice on a bio in order[edit]

See User talk:David Gerard#Crystal_Gail_Mangum - Mangojuice is wondering about BLP vs GFDL. Oh, and did you notice the arbcom case has reached acceptance - David Gerard 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the edits on the scandal page are all attributed. If someone has cut and paste, they may have breached the GFDL, but I'm not sure that's our problem. Seems to me not worth worrying about, unless someone makes an issue of it. I'll look in at the arbcom case later. This will be interesting.--Docg 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Temper, temper...[edit]

I just saw your call-to-arms against boxes and so I thought it would be worth letting you know that some of us who work on these things can see your point and even agree with you on some things. But since you almost immediately deleted what I said, that doesn't seem to interest you. I thought that your little page was a place for discussion instead of simply being reactionary. Ah well.

By your crack about starting my own project, I assume you are referring to WP:INFOWATCH. The group is definitely not biased towards the use of infoboxes everywhere (or at all) - but it is heavily biased against their incorrect usage and crappy design. Like it or not, infoboxes are here. That's not policy, but a fact, like it or not. Simply trying to eradicate them is an act in futility. All we can do is make sure that they are used properly, that their usage is kept in check and their impact is minimised. All of this I've made perfectly clear in the recent debate over at WP Composers.

I agree, most (perhaps all) biographical infoboxes are unnecessary, shoddy, and should probably be scrapped. But geographical infoboxes are part of any encyclopedia: would you eliminate them, too?

Only a constructive approach can make the rapid spread and usage of templates manageable. Sitting in a members' only page talking of revolution will get you nowhere. All I wanted to say was that I wanted to help in a constructive way, if you are genuinely interested. Of course, if your page is just meant to be a bit of fun and I'm reading too much into this, then fair enough. - 52 Pickup 16:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mainly fun. Infoboxes can be useful - I mainly object to meta stylistic rules being enforced across swades of articles without regard for what is best for that particular article. I'm not on a crusade, just constructing a personal punchbag in my userspace. Sorry about the revert - it was intended in the same jocular manner.--Docg 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries. This whole metadata stuff is a mystery to me too. I also object to sometimes systematic use of infoboxes by those who either 1) have no idea about the article, or 2) can't use the template properly, or 3) both. At least now you know that some of us who work on infobox design are on your side. - 52 Pickup 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff[edit]


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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BDJ proposed principle[edit]

Hi Doc, I wasn't sure to what extent a threaded discussion is permitted at the Workshop (particularly under "Comments by parties" when I'm not a party) so I'll comment here instead; I hope that's OK with you. I'll quote for context:

"If an action of yours (administrative or otherwise) has been reversed, it is more productive to discuss the actual issue straight away, rather than insisting on self-reversion before any further discussion can take place or bickering about whether or not the reversal was an act of wheel-/edit-warring." (YFB ¿)
"Not helpful. There is a very important issue in ensuring admins understand they must not undelete BLP deletions without discussion. That isn't just a squabble on a point of process, it is critical. In undeleting a BLP deletion you may be recreating a libel you've missed - it is absolutely basic that you ask the deleting admin for comment before jumping on the tools. If I went on a bit it was because of that. The action was the issue.--Docg 22:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

If I could address this - I'm not disputing that it is contentious, at least, to reverse a deletion without discussion. However, I really can't agree that the action was the issue, at least not in the way that I intended the principle to read. The issue was the BLP concern you cited as the reason for the original deletion, not the fact that it was reversed. Now, I agree that you were perfectly correct to point out that you disagree with the undelete and consider prior discussion critical. My point here is that after that same view was stated by Tony, Phil, Nick, Wjbscribe and yourself, you still insisted on self-reversion before you'd discuss the actual reason for the deletion. The result was a long argument about the definition of wheel-warring, which was irrelevant to the deletion itself.

If you genuinely disagree that discussing article content and the appropriate next step to find an acceptable outcome is more important to the project than your "opponent" eating a slice of humble pie and self-reverting, then fair enough. If that's not your position, I would ask you please to reconsider your opposition to my statement. I'm not taking a strong position either way on the substance of the dispute (either between you and BDJ or violetriga) but I would hope that we were on the same page about what's most important here - obtaining the best outcome for Wikipedia with the minimum of drama. --YFB ¿ 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on the same page. If administrative actions are not reversed without discussion, then your finding is moot. It isn't about 'humble pie', it is about not having things that may be harmful undeleted before the person that has judged them harmful is consulted and asked "why?". It is quite possible that the undeleting admin has missed something scurrilous. This happened to me recently, when an different admin undeleted the history of an article that was downright poisonousness. Had he consulted me, I'm fairly sure I would have convinced him that it was a bad move. That's why discussion before undeletion matters.--Docg 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that discussion before undeletion matters. I disagree that redeletion should be a pre-requisite for that discussion, since it's the discussion that is ultimately what's needed. Obviously in cases where there is a genuine, immediate likelihood of harm coming from the very existence of the article, redeletion is essential, but that really doesn't seem to be the case here, as evidenced by your agreement to have the history undeleted for merging purposes if there was a consensus to do so. Are we really not on the same page? --YFB ¿ 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Your still missing the point. We can't discuss whether there is harm when someone has just replaced the potential harm. We discuss, if we agree there's no harm, we proceed to undeletion. That's the only sensible order.--Docg 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that makes it succinct. I fail to understand why we can't discuss whether there is harm when someone has just replaced the potential harm. You can still argue that there is potential harm, regardless of whether it's deleted or not. I fully agree about the sensible order, but I disagree about the impossibility of following any other course. Anyway, I don't wish to conduct a full-blown argument about this, I was just hoping you might consider a more compromising approach in cases which are not causing obvious, immediate harm. --YFB ¿ 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


I've sent you a rather long email. I feel it is more appropriate in that medium than on here as it is a matter between you and me rather than everyone here. violet/riga (t) 09:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. When I've got a minute, I'll try to reply in the same constructing and conciliatory spirit. Very welcome.--Docg 13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where the top is[edit]

It's at the other end. ☺ Uncle G 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Good grief. They changed the instructions and didn't let on? I dunno - I just press a "send to VfD" button on my browser. I have a nive script someone wrote. Not sure how to change that.--Docg 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We had a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#New noms to top or bottom?, and I've been putting prominent HTML comments in and giving friendly nudges to various editors who have missed them. I've also drawn AzaToth's attention to xyr script, which requires modification. Is that the script that you're using? Uncle G 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm a total scrip ignoramous. I nicked my monobook from somewhere many months ago and have just always used it. It is User:Doc glasgow/monobook.js. If anyone knows how to improve or update it, they are welcome to help me.--Docg 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31/Allison Stokke Temp[edit]

Hi. I'm curious why you deleted this? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't undelete the history of BLP deletions. They have been removed from wikipedia for a purpose. Thanks.--Docg 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd have thought that common sense would tell people that living bios deleted citing the biographies of living persons policy should not be undeleted during a deletion review. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I figured hidden away out of the main namespacce wouldn't do any harm and might satisfy the jackals. Maybe that wasn't the best call. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't do it again. But kudos for admitting your error. The jackals? No, they're insatiable--Docg 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, now it seems to have been brought back in a much more public place. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article did not violate G10. There was no justification for refusing history undeletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Archie Pu[edit]

I agree the article is problematic and annoying, but see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Perhaps "disputed" tags might be more appropriate? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Em. The article has negative material. Many of the sources are 404 links. That breeches BLP. Such information must be removed. Don't replace it or you may be blocked.--Docg 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That is FUTON bias, and wrong. That there is no longer a URL does not mean that a source does not exist. The biographies of living persons policy quite rightly does not require FUTON bias. Uncle G 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Quick, let's block everyone who has ever edited or had anything to do with the article, especially admins! :-) Or better yet, let's not take out our frustrations about the article on eachother, and try to find forums to discuss what's best to do with it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, accusing me of disruption isn't helpful. I removed the content so it can be replaced when properly sourced. That's all.--Docg 18:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sean Parker-Perry Editing Wikipedia Biastly[edit]

Hi Doc,

Just writing to tell you about a Tameside Councillor being Sean Parker-Perry editing information on Wikipedia in a biast fashion. Wikipedia is an authority source which is used by many people as anyone can contribute and edit information, it is highly used across schools. People in research will often cite Wikipedia articles, probably even the Highways Agency who are currently reviewing the situation whether or not to build a bypass through Swallows Wood which Sean Parker-Perry supports the bypass.

The main article for Swallows Wood is:

also for the Longendale Bypass:

and for his own biography page:

and the unrelated Roy Oldham page:

(The above links, show the article in their current form, to view the history of the edits, click the history tab, followed by clicking on the link "diff" which will compare the two versions)

Now Sean Parker-Perry goes under numerous aliases to edit these pages including his own, as YellowFrogs, CO2junky and the I.P addresses, ,, and as far as I am aware.

You can see his contributions on the following pages:

If you click on one of those links, it will show you the number of edits made including what has been edited by clicking on "diff", as you can see the edits have been made in a positive manner towards Sean Parker Perry's political agenda.

Some of the most humorous edits include Roy Oldham's page which Sean Parker-Perry has done himself:

"people in the area suggest that Tameside wouldn't be as successful as it is without Roy at the helm... here ' s to another 25 years!"

He also promotes himself on his own biography page as the "Tameside's greenest member"

On the list of edits includes his employer, James Purnell MP, as well as other members of the Labour party. I never knew that a Labour councillor would be such an avid Wikipedian!

When someone reverts Sean's edits, he then complains to administrators who volunteer to monitor Wikipedia:

He also has arguments with people that make these edits and "slander"

Sean also threatens me on someone elses user page, he obviously thinks that I edited an article related to him, but this is not my I.P address:

The majority of these edits are made in office time and are presumably done on council premises or within the MP's building at Hyde. I think that a councillor doing this is extremely petty and an extreme waste on tax payers money.

Because Sean is actively editing the Swallows Wood related pages, this gives a political biast towards his policies. If another person was to research on the topic, they would then be influenced by his political leanings. If the Highways Agency was to base some of their research on Wikipedia, it would then mean that the report would be misleading. The enquiry into the Longendale Bypass begins on the 26th of June 2007.-- Unsigned</>

mmm this all seems like a lot of piffle. I don't think minor politicians need biogs - Longendale must be the only ward in Tameside (A a former cottonopolis) that has more sheep than electors. I thought i'd stumbled accross the new Ashtongate, but think its just a disgruntled citizen letting off steam. Tut tut Mike33 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with mike33 - Liam Billington (gay-boyDS) is a disgruntled conservative party member. He is now being investigated by the police and further the 'yokel' press are now involved in this. I would suggest putting a full edit block on this page.

Sean, I may vote Conservative, but I am not a member.

RfC on my conduct[edit]

Per your earlier suggestion, I've just opened an RfC on my conduct related to the Gary Weiss and other issues raised during my RfA. The Rfc is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 22:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ATM, I can't recall anything about this. I'll look later.--Docg 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's where you suggested it: [6]. Unfortunately, none of the editors who were so adamant and vocal with their concerns during the RfA have commented on the RfC. I hope that they will, because I'd like to exhaustively discuss the issue so that it can hopefully be put in the past. CLA 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Opnion requested[edit]

Hi, Doc. I've seen some of your comments on the issue of biographies of living persons, and, if you'll forgive me for spamming your page, I wonder would you mind taking a look at a concern that I raised at Guy's page here (third post from the bottom of that section, assuming that nobody adds to it, and the remaining posts) and give your opinion. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of murder articles[edit]

Do you have somthing against murder articles from the uk because you seem to have gone on a binge to try and get as many of theme as possible delted a number of the articles have had other aticles merged in to them and your unconstructive work is having to be undone now. The work especilly with the Donald Neilson artilce was completly unecessaty as thes aticle was not a stub and had had other aicles merged in to it. I think that a bit more though first before a deltion binge is undertaken would be apreciated. Many thanks--Lucy-marie 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No. But I do have a problem with a pro BNP coatrack. You see, I have this little aversion to racism.--Docg 16:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me did I miss something what does the BNP have to do with this?--Lucy-marie 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Donald Neilson DRV notification[edit]

Not by me, just informing you out of courtesy. Won't bother with the template, I'm sure you know where to find it. One Night In Hackney303 16:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Review requested[edit]

I know that I'm playing with fire even working on these articles at the moment, but I would like your input on my attempts to author a BLP-compliant article about one of the recently deleted topics. Having reviewed off-site caches, I agree that the article you deleted at Charlotte Wyatt was problematic, going into unacceptable detail about irrelevant aspects of her family. However, I do not believe that her age and circumstances are an absolute barrier to an acceptable entry; she has been discussed in a substantial number of medical ethics and law journals, for example (indeed, many more than I chose to cite). I have not yet placed my efforts in the article space, feeling that would be likely to escalate the issue. I would appreciate hearing from you as to whether you feel this version satisfies the BLP concerns that led to your deletion of the original.

Thanks, and regards. Serpent's Choice 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to comment. I'd say your article is strictly speaking BLP compliant - I'd certainly not be deleting it. However, I'd ask a few editorial decision questions. Is this an encyclopedia article, or merely a news report? Will the case, in an of itself, be notable in a few years time? Or will it just be the one that was hitting the newspaper at a particular juncture? I see from your sources, that the case is being mentioned in current debates - but is that because this case maters, or just because it illustrates some larger point or debate? In which case, the illustration will be different in a year's time. If the information is worth us having, is the best place to have it in a 'biographical' article under the child's name - or would it be worth adding rather as an illustration in a wider article on 'right to die' in British debate? If the sources are only news reports or sources that discuss as an illustration of a wider debate - then perhaps we should follow the sources' lead. Just some thoughts.--Docg 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Your question really addresses several different determinations, which I'd like to give serious response to. I wish this whole BLP issue weren't so heated at the moment; I'd offer more about the topic elsewhere were situations different.
  • The first determination is the distinction, as you said, between an article and a news report. That's tough. Because Wikipedia isn't paper, and because news reports are important sources, there isn't really a bright-line distinction that can be made. However, especially regarding young people who are potential topics by circumstance, I try to keep to a rule of thumb. I avoid authoring such articles except where the article can be sourced to outside the media (such as the volume of scholarly-journal discussion regarding Wyatt) or at a minimum, where sources are considering the subject as an important aspect of a wider topic. When the only reporting is "Person P. has <condition> or was the victim of <crime>" there isn't really anything for us to say, unless it is in articles about <condition>, <crime> or the criminal involved (if an article there is warranted).
  • The second determination, if something is to be said, is where to say it. I'm a delusionist, and my particular "delusion" is building on Wikipedia's structural richness. An article on the right to die in the UK (or medical ethics in the UK, or what-have-you) is probably a good idea, although I don't feel broad topical articles are my strong point. But I don't think that contraindicates an article on the primary person or people involved. A lot of times, this will also be an editorial decision based on issues such as page length and due weight: Wyatt might someday be able to be merged into a well-sourced article addressing the topic in the UK, but not into right to die itself; by contrast, Terry Schiavo (similar circumstances, but uglier political involvement) can't really ever be merged anywhere.
  • The last determination regards naming, and when (if ever) we should conceal the names of living people. The difficulty here is that I can begin with the same ethical premises and provide valid arguments that reach opposite conclusions. Wikipedia has an enormously powerful imprint and no expiration date. Such people are, in one sense or another, victims. 1) There is security in obscurity; the best way for Wikipedia to minimize harm is to simply avoid associating sensitive names with actions, allowing the connections to fade away over time. Or 2) You cannot unbreak an egg; the best way for Wikipedia to minimize harm is to ensure, by article or redirect, that such search terms go to content that is neutral, compliant, and appropriate. I believe the latter, but I know that many contibutors feel otherwise.
In this case, I don't think there's any question it will still be notable in the future. Regardless of how we choose to address it, the High Court broke with tradition by allowing this case to be in open court (as a matter of "public interest", even). It is part of a wider debate, certainly, but to a very real extent, it is the impetus for that debate. In the end, no one answer or strategy is going to fit for every one of these problematic BLPs.
But, hey, if it were easy, Wikipedia would be done by now! Serpent's Choice 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On BJAODN[edit]

I don't understand why you believe that BJAODN pages necessarily violate the GFDL. If Jeffrey O Gustafson's intentions were pure, he would have done the work to make the pages compliant with *his interpretation* of the GFDL by merging edit histories, or selectively deleted content that could not be properly sourced. Instead he unilaterally deleted the pages and wheel-warred to protect his action. --The Cunctator 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, and whom did he wheel-war with. Anyway, motives interest me little, I'd rather assume good faith. I am a very rusty lawyer, but I'd say the pages don't comply, and can't be undeleted for that reason. Find me a better lawyer (not hard) that says otherwise (perhaps harder?) and I'll admit room for doubt, or even my error.--Docg 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke[edit]

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding, what's wrong with the things I linked in the AfD? Can I get a link to the DRV? McKay 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[7]--Docg 00:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could explain it to me, but I don't see why sourced additions should be removed as per WP:BLP. McKay 14:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Because there was a consensus on DRV that this information could be speedily deleted under BLP. I am not re-running that debate.--Docg 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a debate, I'm asking for an explanation of the debate. I don't understand, and I want to see your point of view. McKay 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I have answered this already on the talk page. I am not having yet another a discussion about it here.--Docg 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke[edit]

I understand your point about the meme, but what In 2004, she won a [[California]] state championship at age 15, and broke several national records in her age division.<ref></ref>? Presumably if we have an article on her, that would be relevant. Not trying to be difficult, I'll leave it with you. Stevage 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop it. That article isn't about athletics, it is about her humiliation as a meme. If she is notable other than for the meme, then sources should exist for that. Find them. I will remove the washington post link later per BLP.--Docg 07:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how BLP allows you to remove a link to a reliable source. There's nothing in the policy that either mandates or even suggests that. A reminder that further removal will also put you over 3RR. JoshuaZ 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see the talk page of the article- and Xolos DRV close. That the material infringes BLP has been endorsed by DRV. You may disagree - but there it is.--Docg 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The DRV close agreed that the version that existed which had no good sourcing should be deleted per BLP. That's not the claim you are making at all. Even if it did say what you wanted it to, DRV is not the forum to add new clauses to the BLP policy. JoshuaZ 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Anyway this discussion has been had elsewhere. No point in repeating it.--Docg 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Just a reminder about 3RR. And when you do revert, if you feel a need to remove part, do not remove sourced content about her records as well. Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP is exempt. Stop it.--Docg 07:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Fake BLP concerns probably are not, Doc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like you are in a vocal minority there. Please respect consensus.--Docg 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Doc, if there is a BLP issue then consensus doesn't matter. If this is a consensus based issue then 3RR matters. And again, you've repeatedly removed sourced content that had to do with her records. JoshuaZ 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So, block me, see you in arbitration.--Docg 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to block you since 1) that wouldn't accomplish anything and 2) I'm involved in the matter. I would like you to stop blindly reverting. JoshuaZ 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you I will do nothing blindly. I will continue to enforce policy.--Docg 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Isn't this amazing the family themselves [8] have only recognized thirteen member as being "famous" [9] yet we have to have here some 60 odd; I am tempted to email "The Hon Historian, of the Arbuthnott Family Association - "who will welcome corrections, additions and constructive suggestions" and see if s/he has a clue what is going on here. I also note the Arbuthnott site clearly states [10] that "The site (Kittybrewster's) is not subject to the control of the Association and the Association specifically disassociates itself from the site". Giano 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See also murders...[edit]

The userpage of the editor who's been adding it is relevant here, especially his blog that is linked on there. 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He's on my radar.--Docg 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First AfD closure[edit]

Any chance you can review my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haza? It's the first AfD I've closed and I know I'm not immune to cockery-uppery, so thought it worth getting a second opinion from the Doc. Cheers --Dweller 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.--Docg 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks you star. --Dweller 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Mckaysalisbury[edit]

I unblocked. Not sure if that constitutes a formal wheel war, but it may, much as I usually like to avoid those. I'm kind of hoping it doesn't, due to the facts that

  1. the block was short originally, and had little left to run
  2. the page in question has been protected, and was likely to stay that way during the duration of the block, making the point of the block moot

but I am notifying you. I admit I also think it was a rather questionable block in the first place, but that would be cause to discuss it with you rather than just unblocking, I just unblocked for the numbered reasons above.

Anyway, I am interested to know whether you think this incident should be entered into the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff case, or perhaps somewhere else - maybe WP:AN or WP:ANI for an opinion of other admins? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony added it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop#Doc_glasgow_blocks_under_BLP. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand your logic here. That it was a very short block surely makes it less important to undo. You say there was cause to discuss it it with me, but you "just unblocked anyway". So, you are incapable of even following your own advice? You couldn't be bothered? Or you simply wanted drama? Yes, of course it is wheel warring. What I find really bizarre is you unblocked and then suggested I sgould report your abuse to arbcom? Eh? Did you seek the opinion of other admins on ANI before unblocking? If you did, then I would be happy to abide by their consensus. Can you point me to it? --Docg 21:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As I've commented elsewhere, everyone agrees that BLP blocks can be made by involved admins when there is negative unsourced information being added. Once the information is reliably sourced we may still wish to not have it for editorial and ethical reasons, but that is at best a penumbra of BLP and blocks should not be made for that nearly as quickly. JoshuaZ 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The user was no innocent. He'd repeatedly been involved in the discussion and knew the material had already been repeatedly removed under BLP. He was pushing his luck, and I hope the block taught him a lesson.--Docg 07:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In the future, I'd recommend that instead of blocking editors you're involved in a content dispute with, you find someone else to do it. If it's that egregious, it shouldn't be hard to get a third party. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have never blocked an editor in a content dispute. I trust I never will.--Docg 07:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Disclave prod tag[edit]

Just a quick note to say that I have removed the prod tag from the Disclave article, as I think the reasons given for the tag have been addressed. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 19:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A minor point[edit]

Regarding Hans Hermann Groër, pretty much all he is known for in the popular press is that scandal. It took a half a second to verify. It might be a good idea to look around a tiny bit before/after removing such sections. JoshuaZ 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I could, and I often do. But it isn't my responsibility. And if I stopped to do that, I'd have less time to hunt down other potential libels. --Docg 07:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


With regard to this, I want to apologise if my tone sounded hostile. You're right, on balance, that you didn't do anything wrong in bringing the ArbCom case, and I've struck out that part of my comment. With regard to the circumventing of process and discussion, however, I stand by my earlier statements. I know you're acting in good faith and doing what you believe is best for the encyclopedia, and I respect that; that's why I opposed the proposal to desysop you. But I strongly believe that admin tools should be used only according to policy and consensus, and that you acted wrongly in using them to unilaterally delete articles under a very broad interpretation of BLP. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing personally against you, and I know you're a good admin. And I wouldn't admonish you for disagreeing with me, only for using the admin tools in pursuit of your stance. Waltonalternate account 12:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I belive I do only use my tools per policy. I'm sure I make mistakes, I'm not claiming I don't. If you look at my evidence to arbcom, you'll not I'm always open to reconsidering. The case isn't about whether I'm right or wrong, it is about respect that needs to be shown when an admin judges something to be a BLP violation. Yes, that's not the last word, the admin can be wrong, but we need to proceed carefully and slowly from that point. I have no complaint with violetriga challenging the propriety of my deletions - but that one admin disagrees does not mean we replace the offending material. We slow down, we talk, we wait. It is always better to temporarily have good content deleted under BLP (and restored later), than to temporarily have bad content on the servers (and deleted later). That;s really the nub of it.--Docg 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I would agree in principle that it's better to have bad content removed than kept, it depends on your definition of "bad content". Obviously an out-and-out attack page can, and should, be speedied, and requires no discussion. But something that's sourced and factual, and is a possible BLP violation (as opposed to a glaring one), can, IMO, wait a few days for the outcome of an AfD. That's why these articles should have been taken to AfD in the first place, with a full discussion period, so as to gauge the wishes of the community. In this case I'm talking about the QZ and the Alison Stakke articles, neither of which was an obvious violation. Unfortunately, I think BLP's provisions such as "do no harm" are far too open-ended, and should ideally be replaced with a precise, unambiguous process for how such material is to be dealt with. WaltonAssistance! 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD Kach[edit]


Why not blank the page, and let the AfD run? The AfD could have come to a consensus to redirect, you know? We were not harming the (now) adult woman by reprinting material from newpapers for five days, anyway. I didn't see anything "tabloid" in the article. Why haven't you gone all the way, and deleted Elizabeth Smart yet? Xoloz 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you blank it, since you saw it as a BLP violation? BLP violations must be removed - that's clearly policy.--Docg 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see it as a "violation" -- I saw it as a concern; I weakly favored its deletion if it couldn't be rewritten. I offered, in both my edit summary of restoration, and the DRV, that we could blank in the AfD, if anyone wished. Did you read any of that before you acted? Did you think before you acted? I believe you may be incapable of seeing anything other than "black-or-white" on this issues. I ask you to refrain from closing any BLP AfD's until you begin to understand the subtleties involved. This person was more like Ms. Smart than Ms. Stokke, and your early closure was needlessly stifling useful discussion, obviously ill-thought, based on your own questions to me above (since you appear not have read my words closely, if at all), and a harm to the encyclopedia, which must discuss seriously what it will do with victims of crime. If we have Elizabeth Smart, discussing Kach is reasonable. Xoloz 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I did read what you wrote, and disagreed. I thought long and hard before acting. Does that make me infallible? No. Does it mean I was right? Not necessarily. However, the principle that where BLP "concerns were justified" - we don't undelete just to allow discussion is vital. No, we can't keep repeatedly adding to victimhood by discussing it - that's the whole point, and why your repeated procedural relistings are highly inappropriate. A redirect can be discussed, or even a merge, without undeletion - that could have gone on quietly on a talk page somewhere. The subjects of these articles are not footballs for the community to kick about until its processes are exhausted, because internal transparency demands we "must discuss". You could have been creative and simply redirected the article yourself, but no, you had your ideas of process to follow. I tell you what, I will refrain from closing BLP related debates, only if you also agree to do the same. Since your closures are now part of the problem.--Docg 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never closed a BLP AfD in my life. It is absurd in the extreme to claim that a five-day discussion at AfD contributes to "victimhood": the victim isn't reading; and, even if she were, she will have become accustomed to attention from the mainstream press. She will find herself treated much more respectfully here, but we CANNOT IGNORE THE EXISTENCE of victims. As was concluded in the Hornbeck/Owenby case, ignoring victims can considered disrespectful also. I ask again, why haven't you tested your absurd notions to the limit, by doing the "right thing" (according to your "let's end victimhood" logic), and speedied Elizabeth Smart. I'd love to see this philosophical dispute come to a head after that. Xoloz 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I was asking you to refrain from closing DRVs not AfDs. As to the rest. What's that? I musn't remove this unless I remove all other types of it? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Docg 15:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I wish I agreed with your foolish view, so that I could test the limit, for the encyclopedia's sake. No matter... someone will before too long, if this BLP wackiness continues, and the absurdity at its heart will become apparent. Xoloz 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for that. You may disagree - but we are not fools.--Docg 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You aren't foolish, but this view of yours is: foolish and dangerous. Victims may be expunged from WP, made to feel more stigmatized, if it runs rampant. Xoloz 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Doc here. The idea that we must do x because of process, when x is something which involves reintroducing content which gives rise to serious concerns like this, is plainly at odds with not only the letter but also the spirit of policy. Rather than do things like this, I would urge you to think of a more creative solution, which facilitates reasoned debate without either reintroducing problematic content, or enabling the hysteria all too often in evidence at DRV these days. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Doc has a good point--which you may recall I made myself. The recent change in what Wikipedia is not was welcomed by the community, and has far-reaching consequences. We can now say that we are distinct from the press, our values are different, and where there is a conflict between the values of the press and the values of our own policy on living persons it is our own policy that will always take primacy. So this close was well within administrative discretion. Since the article had already been discussed for several days on deletion review and even on an earlier AfD, and lots of people had given their own input, it cannot reasonably be argued that we didn't discuss it at length. --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Given that the discussion at the DRV and misguided AFD ended with a decision to overturn, your argument is pretty weak. Any BLP concerns at Tanya Kach article were minor, being that it was sourced and verifiable. Have any of these deleting administrators actually read BLP, specifically WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown, which is exactly what we're dealing with here? - hahnchen 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Another thing that I'd like to say, Xoloz, is that I think your attempt to use lawyerly techniques to draw precedents ("As was concluded in the Hornbeck/Owenby case...") is not appropriate to Wikipedia. The opinions of a small number of people on a Wikipedia forum may be taken as a rough indicator of Wikipedia feeling in a particular case, but is not equivalent to a judicial finding on a question of law. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No kidding, Tony. Precedential value is weak, if not nonexistent on Wikipedia, but drawing parallels for the sake crafting reasonable decisions happens all the time. I never said it had the force of law, I just mentioned it because it makes good common sense. Xoloz 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh look, the three musketeers of out of process deletions. Or perhaps Huey Dewey and Louie...? ViridaeTalk 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK so where the hell did Guy's comment go? ViridaeTalk 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that's helpful somehow, Uncle Donald.--Docg 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke[edit]

What?!? Why on earth can't we have a section about what her content could look like?!? Do you really think I'm being intentionally inflammatory? I'm trying to contribute to this encyclopedia. Nothing I've proposed is more BLP Violating than [11], [12] except mine were sourced. What's the real problem here? McKay 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting I block him too? The real problem here is that you are trolling.--Docg 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You honestly think that trying to propose what a meme section could look like is intentionally disrupting the usability of Wikipedia? McKay 15:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And no, I'm not suggesting you block them, but I do expect if you remove my content and place a warning on my talk page, then you should remove their content as well and place a warning on their talk page. Otherwise, it looks like you're holding me to a different standard, and essentially making a personal attack. McKay 15:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I fix what I see. I don't see everything, and I've no obligation to sort every problem.--Docg 15:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So, let me help you. Tell me what kinds of things should be removed, and I'll remove them on your authority. Right now, I don't feel like I understand what (you think) should be removed. And if we're to continue, I think that that's something we'll need. McKay 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jared Gipson[edit]

Doc, I have to agree that this isn't a helpful article to have, however, it doesn't meet the criteria of an attack page by any stretch of the imagination. To be blunt, John Wilkes Booth would probably meet as an attack page by the standard you are using. Repeating these sorts of actions both is not helpful for the long term health of the project and doesn't have any basis in policy. JoshuaZ 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I viewed it as an attack. If you believe the content is useful, I'm happy to undelete it for you. I review my actions on request.--Docg 08:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for your input[edit]

I've put some thoughts down at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP and I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. JoshuaZ 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Rachel Moran[edit]

Apparently I was in the process of writing the following comment when the AfD was closed:

::::::::*Comment I checked your talk page and saw no mention of this discussion. I also checked the talk page for JulesH and saw no discussion there either. Based on this it appeared that all discussions were here on this page. As I did not see a discussion prior to your reverts of JulesH then it did not appear to be the process being followed. (I do not see any discussion on my talk page from you prior to your revert either.) Feel free to point me in the right direction regarding the strikethrough that you placed. I am still attempting to find the policy regarding the modification of an editor's comments on an AfD discussion page. Drew30319 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As the comment took a little time to ensure that my statement was correct it's understandable that the overlap could occur.

I would like clarification regarding this statement of yours however:

"*Closer - please not (sic) socks and duplicate !votes.--Docg 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)"

It appears to me that an AfD discussion page would not be the appropriate venue for discussing possible sock-puppetry. Why would this not instead by handled via the Suspected sock puppets page? Is this commonplace but I'd not encountered it before? Drew30319 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is for the judgement of the closing admin to discount any suspected duplicate views. I probably should have said duplicates rather than socks.--Docg 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


I semiprotected your talk last night, I hope you don't mind. Please fix it up the way you want it. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks guardian angel :) Yes, I seem to have managed to stir up crop of English racists having taken a flamethrower to their little hate nest. There's also a McKay trolling me - although I'm not sure what his problem is.--Docg 13:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the Clan McKay - well, they're a lore unto themselves - and always have been ;) --Alf melmac 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there something I'm missing?[edit]

Doc, I'm puzzled by your question at Jeff's talk page. You said, "...if I had been beating her - I'd apologise. Would you?" Am I to understand that I've been beating some kind of metaphorical wife, or that I've shown some kind of unwillingness to apologize? If it is something like that, please let me know, so I can take steps to remedy whatever mistake I've made, or at least learn to stop making it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, my point simply is, we can all choose words badly. We should be able to apologise and retract. Jeff here badly chose his words, he'd have been better advised to simply say "no, shouldn't have said that". That would have ended it. But, Jeff never admits to being wrong, never apologises, and simply digs himself in deeper.--Docg 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think those "never" statements are accurate, and they're certainly not helpful to bring up when you're talking with him. You'll find dealing with Jeff much easier if you try not to push buttons. Remember about the "content, not the contributor". Would you respond well to being told "you never admit you're wrong"? Would that make you more likely to see things from the other person's perspective, or more likely to get defensive? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It would cause me to stop and consider. But I do make mistakes - that's the point.--Docg 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Starfleet officers by rank[edit]

Would you mind undeleteing it and moving it to my userspace? I'd like to work on it a bit more (salvage). There was an ongoing discussion about that on the talk page that was cut abruptly. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can do. But can you give me some indication as to the purpose of userfying it? There seems a clear consensus that there should be no such article. Are you intending to use the information in other articles? If you just want it for yourself, I'd rather e-mail it to you and avoid keeping it on wiki. --Docg 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I want to first continue the discussion. I'll also need material from history. It can be easily redeleted at any point. -- Cat chi? 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well? -- Cat chi? 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

encyclopedic standards[edit]

I'm as much concerned with repeatable uniform standards as what the level is, and I would support an explicit statement of what besides the two sources for basic N was necessary for deceased crime victims. This is a recurring special case, and we should get some standard to avoid cluttering up AfD with each of them, argued from scratch. . As policies is now written, it looks like 2RSs trumps any other consideration except BLP. (Considering everything, we might want to defer that part a little). DGG 17:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Counting sources is not ever going to be a substitute for using judgement. Life is never that straight forward. I'm looking for evidence that the case has attracted more interest than just news reports. Does it have a cultural/political/literary/legal impact beyond mere media interest in its facts and trial?--Docg 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What you are suggesting is subjective and slighlty POV the Notability guidlines set out that independent mulitiple sources and (anything more than one is a multiple) create notability. Also there is not an abundance of British murder cases there are about 800 murders a year in the UK and only a handfull make any form of independent source and of them even fewer are considered to go on here. I think the current articles do merit being on here, It is not as if were are saying frank bloggs walked down the street and was fined for littering.--Lucy-marie 20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is subjective - so is life. Anyone who thinks we can do arithmetic with sources and Ghits to decide what's encyclopaedic really needs a reality check. Newsworthiness isn't encyclopedic. Todays' weather is reported in 100,000 newspapers - so what?--Docg 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You have dodged the question and have provided a smokescrren answer. The main point being raised is diffrent standards apply or notability. Also diffrent countries willl have diffrent standards of crime and diffrent levels of crime. In america in 2005 approximatly 16500 people were murdered. In the UK approximatly 800 were murdered in the same year. The rates in the uk are lower, and very few make any form of media outlet as they are deemed not to be notable enough. Notability is very hard to pin down the guidlines do however cleary stae the multiple independant sources create notability. The majority of articles which have been nominated for deletion have had some form of UK based notability attached such as Anthony Walker for being a racist murder which is highly uncommon in the UK, and Danielle Jones for being a trial with no body and for the use of mobile phone evidence whihc is extremly new in the UK and trails with no body are extremly rare in the uk and are even rarer to secure a conviction on. Overall diffreing opinions persist but the context, culture and society the articles are from must be taken into account before being wildly AFD listed for vague generic reasoning as is currently occuring.--Lucy-marie 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
No my answer is to the point. I've studied UK criminal law - I know the facts and statistics probably better than most, and I disagree. Unless the murder has some political/cultural or legal significance, it is not notable. The number of newspaper reports at the time are wholly irrelevant - we need to look at the context. The Lawrance murder is particularly notable as an instance of institutional racism in the British police, and the inquiry that followed - but most others have no long-term significance.--Docg 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This all POV at the moment and there is no way of accuratly assesing significance. Could you please clearly and concisley lay out the criteria you would consider for notability and give clear reasoning as to why you believe these articles have no significance other than allready stated.--Lucy-marie 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have done so. Your POV is different.--Docg 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed My POV is dioffrent, but can you see where I am coming from? also could you please answer at least the second part of the question raised above?--Lucy-marie 23:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I couldn't. Life can't be codified. I've stated already there needs to be evidence of social/cultural/ or legal consequences. That needs judged case by case. I see where you're coming from - but suggest that you try wikinews.--Docg 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments but the cases mentioned for deletion are in some cases still being reported today such as Hannah Foster. I say that the articles which make multiple news sources are notable enough and Wikinews is in not sufficent to build up any form of coherant section with in this encyclopedia about british crime if some of the cases which are of intrest or significance are deleted on specultavie grounds.--Lucy-marie 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I assure you I nominate nothing on 'speculative grounds'. I will continue to push for the removal of unencyclopedic content. But we not agree on that. Please just assume good faith. Don't accuse me of operating socks - or make wild incoherent accusations, as you have been doing up to now. Make your case on its merits in the debate and consensus will decide what happens. we will not agree - but that doesn't matter.--Docg 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie: We are not a newspaper. Not every case needs reporting here. Because we don't report. We write encyclopedic articles. 800 murders a year in the UK is tragic but the individual murders are not notable. Even if they appeared in multiple newspaper sources. There has to be a cultural or scientific significance to the case for it to be encyclopedic. I do think the project would be better served if you did not make accusations against Doc, for to do so is disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Keith Blakelock[edit]

What "developing convention"? Keith Blakelock's name is well-known and an article under his name makes far more sense and is far more likely to be linked to. -- Necrothesp 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder[edit]

Okay, I just filed a request for unprotection for this page, under the argument that there appears to have been no justification for such protection under WP:PROT, and was informed that it "appropriately protected" until a "review" under WP:OTRS was completed on a private mailing list.

So, as far as I can tell, someone emailed Wikipedia about this article, and wanted something changed, or was complaining, and that this was cause to fully protect the article until such time as their complaints were dealt with in a private review, by a number of unknown editors. However, I don't see any mention of this in any of the cited policy pages -- not on WP:OTRS, not on WP:PROT; no where. In fact, I've never even heard of this process before, let alone seen it as a justification for fully protecting an article -- what gives? I have no idea what's going on here, and none of the other people on the talk page seem to know what's going on either. --Haemo 04:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(I copied this from FloNight's talk, since I don't think she's been around for a couple of days, and you appear to be another editing admin involved)

Links: RFPP. Daniel 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On the ArbCom case and BLP[edit]

I've raised a point here on BLP that I hope will generate consensus. I'm not sure whether to propose it as a principle, I want to sound out opinion first. But I hope it gets to the heart of this issue. Walton 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

I wonder if you'd like to take a look at this. I've produced a version of this article that omits the actual names of students who survived the attack. Each citation is now a description ("21-year-old female chemistry student", and the like) and the article is impeccably sourced to newspaper articles naming these people, some with interviews.

My concern for removing the names is that these people are about as private as one can get and still appear in an encyclopedia. The only thing they did was go to class one day and dodge a potentially fatal bullet, and perhaps in some cases a student saved another's life and survived to tell the tale.

While I've had success in arguing the principle that we should consider whether the names are required, there seems to be considerable sentiment that the names should be in the article, but I see not strong argument for this. Perhaps I'm overdoing it. Would you like to take a look? --Tony Sidaway 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I personally think that the model to follow here is List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre, ie. list the names of the dead, and mention numbers of injured, and leave it at that. It makes it look like a memorial, but in reality is it a footnote to the main article. In a sense, having such a list in the main article is not workable, and having a separate article is best, but the excessive detail at the Virginia Tech one is, well, excessive, morbid, undignified, I could go on... Carcharoth 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
PS. I agree that the article is impeccably sourced, but continue to question the excessive detail. Stuff like "Cloyd's father, C. Bryan Cloyd, worked in Virginia Tech's accounting department since 2005" and "The New York Times states that Alameddine died in the middle of the room,[12] while the Los Angeles Times states that he died near the door." - using sources is all very well, but carefully combing through sources to determine the location of a body!! Someone inject some sanity into that discussion, please. There's more, but I'll go to the talk page of the article instead. Carcharoth 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Carcharoth, I don't think your changes go far enough. Actually, I'd ask why this article exists at all? The number of dead and injured - with some idea of the ages and number of students or techers involved could be added to the main article and leave it at that. The event is certainly notable, but are the names of any of the individuals.--Docg 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I don't think such articles belong on Wikipedia. But if they must, I want to limit their impact on the living. --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In some cases it works the other way around. Relatives of the dead may be distressed that names of their dearly departed are excised from the articles. Feels like losing them twice, no? If you really want to uphold BLP as an ethical policy, you may have to consider that sort of thing as well. The line I personally draw is to name the dead (within limits, ie. for 9/11 it is impractical), but to only name the living if there is very good reason to do so. In the case of well-defined events like this, the question of who was killed is central to the article. It is human nature when reading "Cho killed 32 people", to ask the question "who were they?" The issue is to get the balance right between supplying a few details, enough to satisfy most readers, and the excessive "here is a minute-by-minute account of what happened, who died when and where, and how". Ultimately though, such issues of balance are different for different people. Doc g would be satisfied with something like "24 students and 8 teachers" (can't find the exact numbers right now), I'd be satisfied with a list of names, ages, and hometown, and those supporting the current version would not be satisfied until more details had been added. This question of balance goes beyond WP:BLP. Indeed, I think that it is only the names of the injured that are a BLP concern. Carcharoth 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

review of deletion of article on "Dae Gak"[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dae_Gak. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Durruti36 20:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Vizard[edit]

Hey, noticed your adding to WP:AWNB regarding the above article. I'll happily be taking this on board and see what I can do to kick it in the pants. I'll let you know when i'm ready to transition it from my sandbox to mainspace and place an editprotected on the talk page. Feel free to get in touch with any questions. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably best if you leave a note on the article talk page - as others may duplicate your efforts. I'm staying out of the details myself.--Docg 12:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Check your email, information regarding the re-write has been emailed to you for review to see if it deals with the key issues raised in the OTRS ticket. Email me back or get in touch via my talk with any questions or issues. Thewinchester (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

University of Nottingham Halls of Residence AFD[edit]

Hi, I'm looking at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Nottingham Halls of Residence result here and, well...first of all, I think it's clear that the consensus of the discussion was that something needs to happen to the article -- it ws clearly not "keep". Secondly, it looks like the discussion itself wasn't closed correctly; you use the statement "might have been hepful had the delete argument actually given some coherent reasons" which would have been a valid point to make in the discussion itself but which really doesn't fit in a summary or conclusion line; furthermore, clear policy was cited on both sides of the debate, and I feel your summary was dismissive of my and other people who voted to delete's reasonings. Thirdly, you didn't use the right template on the Talk:University of Nottingham Halls of Residence. --Stlemur 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"dorm-cruft" isn't a deletion reason. There was no consensus to delete, and no basis in policy to delete in the absence of consensus. You are welcome to discuss a merge on the talk page (or just do it and see if anyone objects), there may be a consensus for one - but there's not one for deletion. Sorry if my tone sounded dismissive, I was just trying to helpfully prod people to give better reasons in future. I recorded the result on the talk page - I don't use templates to do that.--Docg 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is (#4). --Stlemur 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that's an essay.--Docg 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination)[edit]

I dont know what to say about your comment on there - well I do but I'd get blocked for 24hours.--Vintagekits 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

?No idea what you mean? If explaining it would be constructive, please do. If not, don't.--Docg 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well - firstly !voting keep because she's "interesting" and that you dont care about wiki criteria on notability. I despair at this place something. Maybe I should write an article about my Grandma - shes well interesting and I am sure shes been in a couple of local newspapers aswell.--Vintagekits 21:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Criteria are just arbitrary codifications of what some people think. I generally see no point in removing verifiable information that has some public interest. A female socialist noble alderman at that time is fairly rare and somewhat interesting - the founder of a college more so. Your grandmother (bless her) probably isn't.--Docg 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Everything you have just said is WP:OR! She never founded a college either - she had a private teaching college named after her for a short period. Whats the point of having wiki criteria on notability if you are just going to ignore it when discussing AfD's in favour of some arbitrary notion of your own.--Vintagekits 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea what the point of the criteria is. They are supposed to be an indication of what wikipedian's tend to do. However, they are not prescriptive. They are not policy. We each make up our own mind and discuss. Wikipedia isn't consistent--Docg 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

What gives?[edit]

You want to talk about it? Special:Emailuser/JzG. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sean Parker-Perry[edit]

Hi doc, this page has been deleted, please may you restore this as it is currently being investigated by the standards board for England and by the police:

Please may this article be reviewed first by the police and the standards board before being deleted again.

Sean thinks that it is me that has made the anti SPP comments, he would be wrong. He knows he has done wrong and is now trying to cover his tracks. I will gladly prove him wrong :) Unsigned

I would recommend you read this blog which I have not edited:

I'm sure the police or standards board are more than capable of contacting the foundation it they require to see the content of the article. --pgk 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"Do NOT feed the trolls".

An alarming development hit my inbox today. I emailed the guy involved, which takes considerable energy as one email is handled by dozens of secretaries. This morning (a sunday) I received an email from the borough solicitor. Humility obviously over-rides SENSE. A warning to anybody - if you are going to get involved in a troll war. These people are just quite mad. Stop and think and for f**ks sake dont feed them. Mike33 11:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


I saw you handed in your tools...I am very sorry to see that.--MONGO 09:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • You may be surprised to know that I am sorry too, you were begining to grow on me; but fear not life can be far more fun without them. Giano 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Jock Ewing...[edit]

Hi, I would appreciate any help in saving the Jock Portrait article. I can attest to everything in it - I was the Production Designer on the Dallas Reunion, and own one of the portraits that I replicated from the original I borrowed from Larry. I would like to see the article saved, just not sure what's the best way to do it - I'd appreciate any help!

James Yarnell 06:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Inmates running the asylum[edit]

Remember my speech in response to the debate that exploded between me and SV on this page about site links in which I said that I had serious concerns about the people who were supposedly overseeing this project? (by the way, I can't find the diff in the archive, you're April and May archives appear to be missing at the moment). Well, here's evidence that I was on the right track: [13]. The current board has serious issues. I think the 10th most trafficked website on the Internet needs more stable, competent, reliable, and ethical managment, don't you? CLA 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)