User:Doc glasgow/Nov 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability 2 Stuff 3 Thank you 4 Re: vandalism 5 DR 6 MONGO 7 Trolling accusation 8 Metrologic Instruments 9 Wringer 10 Cynthia Ore 11 Doc confusion 12 You endanger Wikipedia 13 Gang rivalry 14 Regarding ]]user:66.244.203.244]] 15 Thank you 16 No problem 17 My RfA 18 George W. Bush 19 Bryan Pata 20 User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2 21 The Filthy Truth 22 User:Moe Epsilon/Sprotect3 23 Dalbury's RfA 24 Shiny new buttons 25 Bolton 26 Thanks for your support! 27 User:Doc glasgow/The Last Word 28 Question about a deletion 29 RfA Thanks 30 Scottish national identity 31 Patricia Columbo 32 Thank you very much 33 RfA thanks 34 ArbCom questions

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. --Doc 00:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

Listen, you and I have our beefs, and I'm fully aware of that. Outside of that, I do have respect for you and you know that, for all the many faults I have, I'm a straight shooter. So, considering the somewhat rich irony that this all stemmed from a bunch of attacks I wasn't even involved with, how do you suggest I deal with this incessant barrage of poor faith and outright lies I'm putting up with about my character and my motives? If I'm going to be threatened time and time again for even questioning it, when any discussion on the matter is assumed to be trolling, what else am I supposed to do? What other options are there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I found recently to my own horror, when these things get into partisan slug-fests there is nothing one can do. Make your point, fine, but then drop it. Unwatch the page if it annoys you. If no-one is interested, then continuing to reply to everything in the thread only makes you look like you are spoiling for a fight. It is often the case that our motives are misrepresented or at least misunderstood in Wikipedia, but that's how it goes. You and I suffer from the same damn curse of needing to have the last word - but it never really helps. Further, stop and ask if the objections you are raising are really significant, 'some innocent party might be blocked' (I can't remember if that was your argument or someone else's)- yes perhaps, but let's cross that bridge if and when - most admins are generally able to use common sense and silly blocks get reverted soon enough. I mean, and this isn't meant to sound dismissive, even if the arbcom ruling is technically too wide and full of loopholes, does it matter? Do we need ED links? I'm sure there's plenty of other things to worry about. I'd recommend unwatching these threads - if the initial points you make are significant someone else will follow through. And....MONGO isn't a bad chap, really.--Doc 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your efforts on my behalf and for the good of Wikipedia and want to say thank you. When things get tough for you, don't hesitate to let me know so I can be of assistance to you.--MONGO 04:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, although I think my support has been merely moral up till now.--Doc 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: vandalism

But it was vandalism! It's a fact. Thank you. FML ^{hi me at pt} 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is empty the content with nothing. FML ^{hi me at pt} 14:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A redirect is not nothing.--Doc 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DR

I can't honestly say I particularly appreciate your lecturette on dispute resolution; you write it in a rather holier-than-thou tone as if you think I have very little understanding of all that. So you don't think much of me; please don't lecture me even so. I'm also not looking for dispute resolution - I was just asking CSCWEM to modulate the way he is doing a couple of things. Given a complete stonewall from him, I can't realistically even use the other processes, short of arbitration, and that's really unnecessary in this case. (Another user has also dropped a note on his talk page, and has also been ignored.) A thread on AN is about all there is, to get perhaps others interested, and it's a very standard thing to do. Trying to tape my mouth shut isn't going to do much, and criticism is fair play. The bot will wipe the whole thing out in however many hours it is anyway. -Splash - tk 09:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You have me wrong. Firstly, written posts are a bad way of judging tone. Secondly, I actually do respect you - you are often right - and when you're not, I usually see your point. Thirdly, since you are (to your credit) happy to rebuke or lecture other admins who you feel have got it wrong - perhaps you shouldn't object (even if you disagree) when someone does it to you. On the substantives, my beef is that AN and ANI are now being used for any purpose or discussion, even when proper fora exist for the specific purpose in view. I'm not defending CSCWEM, but I can't see how you can argue that your post to AN was other than a 'request for comment' on an admin's use of his tools. - and his failure to respond to questions We have a process for that - and the fact the subject is unresponsive to criticism makes that process doubly appropriate.--Doc 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes to the AN(I) stuff, but then that's just the way they are, really. I went there after thinking, and because I (still) can't see that I can go anywhere else. I don't want to RfAr; it's really not that kind of thing. I suppose it might be RfC material, but then I'd be the only certifier, and it'd get deleted 48 hours later. CSCWEM would presumably not respond there either, having opted out of talk pages and now AN and it having not been duo-certified. I don't see what else I can do, other than something drastic like a "wake up" block. After all, one good reason not to answer me on talk would be that he reckons he can get away with it for exactly the reasons I just outlined. The only part of disp. resolution open to me is RfAr - surely I shouldn't be using that! (Let's leave out mediation since it's deader than doornails.) Without intending to irritate you, what should I do, given the fact that this seems (to me) to fall between the cracks? -Splash - tk 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess what youare saying is that you think it should be possible to 'request comment' without requiring a certifier. Perhaps we should then change the requirements for 'requests for comments', so they don't require certification? But simply 'requesting the comments' at a different forum in order to avoid the need for certification doens't seem like something we should encourage. If requiring certification is a bad thing, then let's stop it, if it is a good thing, then let's uphold it.--Doc 14:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO

Thanks for the info, I should have read up a bit before asking. I am glad it is not him. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK.--Doc 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling accusation

Look, it's obvious that you and I disagree on this arbitration, but there is no basis for calling me a troll, and I'd appreciate it if you'd retract it. I've looked at the evidence and I strongly disagree with the conclusions others have reached. I am simply expressing my strong disagreement. That's not trolling.

The fact is, I think that Radiant's actions in this dispute were needlessly aggressive and inflammatory. I believe your actions (the removal of the poll) were also aggressive, but to a much smaller extent, which is why I've focused mainly on Radiant's actions. I have made every attempt to dispassionately present evidence and arguments as I see it. To my knowledge, I have not "imputed motives to you", or otherwise acted with incivility. However, if I inadvertantly did so, then please point it out and I will clarify and/or strike it.

Also note that I am on record as saying that neither you nor Radiant were intentionally provoking Fresheneesz - only that your actions were disruptive. I've never called you a vandal; I've only indicated that according to policy your edits could be considered vandalism.

Regarding "sticking to the issues": whereas you believe that the main issue is Fresheneesz's supposed transgressions, I believe the main issue is Radiant's removal of the straw poll. In my view, I am sticking to what I believe to be the most important issue in the dispute.

Finally, if you think my actions warrant review by the arbitration committee, then it's your option to add me to the RfAr. ATren 02:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: After reading Centrx's comment on the Workshop page, I re-read the vandalism policy page - and there is certainly a conflict between the opening paragraph (which indicates vandalism requires bad faith) and the talk page vandalism section (which indicates unambiguously that almost any case of good-faith comment removal is vandalistic). To me, calling someone's actions vandalistic implied nothing about the intent of the editor, but it seems that a vandalism charge does indeed imply bad faith. Therefore, I have struck all allegations of vandalism.

However, if not vandalism, I still think the removal of the straw poll was highly uncivil, and therefore I've replaced "vandalism" with "incivility". I have never claimed that you or Radiant were vandals, only that the acts appeared to be vandalistic. Incivility seems to be a less inflammatory term, and perhaps better matches what I was really trying to say.

In any event, whatever it is called, I thought Radiant's actions were quite inappropriate and were pretty much guaranteed to escalate the conflict into an all-out war. ATren 04:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My action were carried out in good faith and for what I believed was the good of this project. I assume Radient's were likewise. I also assume that that was Fresheneezs was also actin in good faith - as much as I thinkl his actions misguided and inappropriate. You are entitled to think my actions inappropriate. You are not entitled to impute motives to me, or assume the intentions were to disrupt, vandalise, provoke or harrass. Those are all accusations that you have actually made. I don't care how you wikilawyer WP:VAND to make it cover good faith edits, you have failed to assume good faith, and have engaged in personal attacks. Your contributions to the RfAr have been unhelpful, inflammatory and inappropriate. You have been asked serveral times to cease and desist, I genuinely hope that you have finally got the message.--Doc 07:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have acknowledged that my interpretation of WP:VANDAL may have been incorrect, and I've struck any insinuation that the acts were vandalistic. I still believe the acts (mainly by Radiant) were very uncivil. As I requested in my original response, please point out where you feel I "attacked" you, and I will clarify or strike the claim. ATren 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ATren spends a lot of his trolling and wasting everyone's time [1][2][3]Avidor 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't get that last comment (and don't bother explaining). I've suddenly stopped caring about this case, Arbcom can sort it out.--Doc 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let arbcom sort it out. ATren 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Metrologic Instruments

Howdy there,

Here you deleted an article on a company that easily passes every criterion in WP:CORP. It also, once upon a time, had passable content in it, which was spurred by this (withdrawn) AfD. While I don't think the article was ever particularly good, there did exist non-spammy revisions, and (speaking as a bigtime deletionist here) some of these revisions were probably considerably better than no article at all.

I do not know how to proceed in getting this article back. Can you give a pointer? My Alt Account 07:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it. I hadn't noticed the afd. It is still corporate spam though.--Doc 08:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wringer

What, exactly, about the wringer article needs to be verified? Czolgolz 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Em, all of it. There are no references for any of the claims in the article.--Doc 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia Ore

My recollection of this article -- I must rely on recollection because the text has vanished without an AfD -- is that there were indeed sources. Most of the contentious statements were based on Ms. Ore's own allegations in her lawsuit. I doubt that she herself is in any position to file an OTRS alleging that she lied under oath. It's more likely that, two weeks before the election, there's an attempt to suppress a matter that's extremely embarrassing for the Member of Congress who admitted her allegation that they were having an adulterous affair.

Given that the article has existed for quite a while, and given the timing of the complaint, and given that BOTH parties to the affair have stated publicly that it occurred, I strongly recommend that you restore the article, and start an AfD if you think it appropriate.

Failing that, I would greatly appreciate it if you would email me the last version of the article. I think I had put some sources in, which later right-wing editors may have deleted, so if you could go the extra mile and email me the last version that I edited, that might also be a big help. My point is that your invitation to re-create the article shouldn't be the occasion for junking all the work that's already been done. Whatever work is necessary to bring it up to BLP standards will be much easier if we aren't starting from scratch.

Thanks for your help. JamesMLane t c 01:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask a couple of independent admins to look at the deleted article and to review my decision and I'll get back to you (I'm happy to post the material to you, but I'll consult first). There were only two sources cited, one was a dead-link, the other to an alleged achieve of a Times interview hosted on a hostile political site - that's no good. AfD isn't way to go with WP:LIVING issues as 1)it draws attention to possible libels 2) The article would probably survive afd, as the subject (perhaps) merits an article. I'm concerned with the content not the existence of the article. My action does not prevent a re-write. Normally I'd stubify an article like this, but there was not even sufficient cited comment to make a stub. --Doc 08:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There were only two references on the page when I deleted it, and they were the only two last time you edited it: ([4]) - which is dead, and [5], which you'll agree is not an independent reliable source.

However, digging about (but staying away from blogs) I am finding better sources: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Given that, the article could be re-writen, but it needs to be more careful. Not 'in a media interview Ore said', but 'the Times (or whatever) reported Ore as saying....'. Just because it is reported, doesn not mean it is true. If you are willing to work with care on this, I'll undelete the article and stubify it, uou can take it from there, but you'll need to proceed with extreme caution.--Doc 13:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc confusion

Sorry if there has been confusion. I too have been "Doc" in both my professional life and online for the last decade or more and here on Wikipedia for over a year with also thousands of edits. I did add the musical notes to my signature to try and have the line be unique. Perhaps some unique symbol in your signature line would do the trick? One would hope that others would look to the user name for complete identity. Doc ♬ talk 00:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, just unfortunate. When I'm reading discussions, I don't click on sigs - I trust them to differentiate for me. I wonder out paths haven't crossed before. Strange. Thanks.--Doc^g 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You endanger Wikipedia

Its snobs like you who endanger Wikipedia, if you want to bully me and ban be, go ahead bring it tough guy, show me what you got biatch. --Cloveious 00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just so you know, I blocked him for 24 hours due to twice violating WP:FUC despite your warning. --Durin 16:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Gang rivalry

The Gang_rivalry_in_Glasgow article has resurfaced, perhaps you could remove it again. Fraslet 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's rubbish - but not speediable. I've proded it.--Doc^g 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ]]user:66.244.203.244]]

This user needs to be blocked, for continuous vandalism of wikipedia articles, i've already placed a template, I just need an admin to enforce the block.

Thankyou very much, Suicidal tendancies 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for a month. Please don't put templates like that on pages as 1) you are not an admin, so you can't decide to block someone 2) We don't block IPs indefinitely anyway. In future after a test4, you should report the IP on WP:AIV. Thanks.--Doc^g 16:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Doc, thank you for my "cutting through it" award, which I will treasure, notwithstanding the absence of cute moving things to accompany it. :-) Seriously, it's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Np, I'll work on the cute moving things though.--Doc^g 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem

Of course, no hard feelings, as I said on IRC as well. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Doc. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support (and even more to SlimVirgin for nominating me ;-) I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

You'll want to keep an eye on the article. History seems to indicate that it can never be unprotected for more than a few hours, maybe a day, before it has to be semiprotected again. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether it has to be is certainly questionable. But it being sprotected for FOUR weeks is certainly far too far the other way. We are a wiki. It is on my watchlist - and I suspect 100s of others - so any vandalism will be quickly reverted.--Doc^g 22:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's time to replace the protection. The article is receiving heavy vandalism. -- AuburnPilot^talk 01:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

14 vandalisms in 3 hours isn't particularly heavy. But, go ahead and protect it for a while if you must.--Doc^g 01:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Pata

Why did you undelete the Bryan Pata article without being so courteous as to even notify me that you had done so and without going through DRV? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, sorry, I should have informed you - no excuses for that. I'm not a great fan of DRV. In the case of speedies, it seems to me pointless to have a debate about whether there should be a debate. Whilst I think the article is deletable, it was becoming obvious that the decision was at least debatable. Deletion debates happen on AFD, so that's where I send it with my recommendation to delete. I can't really see the point of a DRV discussion on the matter - although no doubt I've 'violated process' somewhere in all of that.--Doc^g 13:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2

As suggested, I moved it the main template namespace for others use. I know how weird it would be adding a subpage with my name to a bunch of highly vandalized articles :) semper fi — Moe 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Filthy Truth

Hi,Could you let me know why "The Filthy Truth" was deleted? In fact, I would ask you to restore it, Thanks MrMarmite 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it. I deleted it to remove possible libels - but I now realise that they were only in two edits. However, can you add some independent verification to the article - it lacks reliable sources at the moments. If not, then if may still require to be deleted. --Doc^g 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Moe Epsilon/Sprotect3

I was wondering if you had any comments on this template I created: User:Moe Epsilon/Sprotect3 I was thinking of replacing those dull grey boxes with a more vivid box. Your comments on this possibly replacing the old formatting on Template:Sprotect are appriciated. semper fi — Moe 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. As to your concerns about my approach to the editing of policy pages, while I still believe that policy pages ought to be the most stable pages on WP, I have, for more than one reason, withdrawn from participation on those pages for the past couple of months. -- Donald Albury 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Bolton

I'd be happy to discuss the sources we can use for the Bolton article. But I don't see why the length of time that specific references weren't supplied has any bearing on the speed with which we provide those references. Further, the article is not unreferenced: the two books listed are support for much of what you deleted. -Will Beback · † · 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the article was a bloody POV hatchet job. Including irrelevant (and unsourced) information about the ethnicity of his child. THat really should worry Wikipedia admins far more than rushing to insert more negative sources. --Doc^g 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the information about the child. I did add sources and now you seem to be upset with me for doing so. Let's work together to improve the article. -Will Beback · † · 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I know you didn't add the statements about the child. I just though your rush to reconstruct the article, and re-label the guy a 'holocaust denier', was inappropriate given we'd been hosting a policy-violating article on him for so long. You seemed to be focusing on the wrong thing. It is always better for Wikipedia to have no information than false, unfair, or badly sourced negative stuff. Given the fact we've been libelling this guy for months, we must insist that nothing negative goes in the article unless independent sourcing is watertight.--Doc^g 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we've been libelling the guy, though I agree that speculation on his child's ancestry is misplaced. Let's discuss this on the article's talk page. -Will Beback · † · 23:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kerry Bolton. -Will Beback · † · 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, more eyes are always better. Thanks for the notification.--Doc^g 10:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 19:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow/The Last Word

I loved it, so I put a link to it on my userpage - I hope you don't mind? Cheers, riana_dzasta 13:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about a deletion

I'm not complaining, I am just looking for more information.

I created an article for my webcast, Your Internet Radio, today and you deleted it.

I see many other wiki articles for webcast stations, and my webcast has been around longer than many of them. So I'm curious as to what exactly constitues a webcast that is deserving of its own wiki article.

I'd appreciate any information that you could share with me.

Thanks!

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising your own projects. --Doc^g 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar's friend Freedom Skies has just replaced all the libellous material you removed about Naipaul, including two completely irrelevant pages about some book called the Chach Nama and India in Vedic times. Could this irrelavent and misleading material, all taken from one unreliable source be removed again?

RfA Thanks

Thank you for the Support I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Doc glasgow, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Scottish national identity

I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Columbo

I know you guys all do the power trip thing, but the things you deleted from Patricia Columbo page were all referenced and were all approved by moderator Chock Bowen. Do you guys even check before you swoop in and delete? Guess not. ColScott 00:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)ColScottColScott 00:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on talk --Doc^g 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA even if it seemed superfluous (the support of long-time Wikipedians like yourself is never a bad thing), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week, but your responses would be added immediately, and you and other late-entering users would be noted in next week's issue as well. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

replied on talk.--Doc^g 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)