User:Doc glasgow/Oct 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 AfD on Manchester councillor 2 {{User Socialist}} 3 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Bussert 4 crats 5 Frontline Ministries International 6 Peter Werbe Article 7 WP:Non-notability 8 arbitration 9 Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/countering anti-Serb bias on deletion review 10 Witch-hunt? 11 ...comparing the arbcom to the instigators of the French Revolutionary Terror? 12 Edward G. Winter deletion 13 Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition 14 User: Uberlol 15 Awa' an' bile yer heid 16 Robert J. Howe deletion 17 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 18 Delection of template 19 Fleshlight deletion review 20 Giano unblocked 20.1 That cool-off block 21 sean parker-perry

[edit] AfD on Manchester councillor

Hi, I've brought up this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan, which you had previously commented on a batch of Manchester councillors including Mr Chohan. I think he is one of the least notable entries. Perhaps you feel like commenting? JASpencer 14:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, sorry. --Doc 00:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{User Socialist}}

You deleted {{User Socialist}} in May, without noting that it was transcluded into a lot of users' pages. Why?! — OwenBlacker 13:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I? I can't recall. --Doc 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Bussert

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The guideline is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

?Sorry, not following that. Sounds complicated. I don't close that many AfDs these days. --Doc 15:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] crats

I though this might be off-track for the workshop page, but in response to your comments, I think presenting false dichotomies. One could hold the opinion (or the arbcom could find) that consensus was not read (whether by mistake, or by intent) in the Carnildo case, without that meaning that crats "have no legitimacy in determining consensus on RFA". One can say that a particular crat or two made a mistake without making any broad statements about crats in general. Similiarly, one can say that a mistake was made in this case without saying "we must always just strictly count numbers." Friday (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're technically right. But AC needs to be very careful. If it implies the crats shouldn't have sysopped in this case, and that their call 'lacks legitimacy', it may well be interpreted to hugely restrict crats discression to interprete consensus. It might either make the crats very cautious not to always go witht he numbers, or alternaively provide a weapon for those disgruntled with future decisions. Individual cases will tend to set precidents.--Doc 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the concern. However (and here's where I suspect we may differ), maybe it's good for the crats to get the impression that they should be conservative in their use of the promotion button. They are only a few crats, they have very limited duties, and promotion of a sysop is not something that have the ability to undo. These all sound (to me) like good reasons for the crats to be conservative in promoting. I think the role of crats is an important question, but probably not one for arbcom to decide. However, if a particular editor thinks the crats erred, or for that matter, if the arbcom thinks the crats erred, of course they should feel free to say so. Friday (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we neccessarily differ here. Crats aren't above criticism, and to be honest I've never looked at the metits of the RfA in question. However, I guess I'm happier to trust at least part of the decision to sysop to experienced users (in whom the community has placed some trust) rather than just to numbers generated by RfA. I mean, you do get some crazy reasoning on RfA votes - and someone needs to have the disgression to ignore grudge votes, or people are unhappy about unpopular but very neccessary things a user has been doing. Otherwise stub sorters will be in the kingdom ahead of anyone who works with image copyvios. Perhaps we need more crats, so unilateral desisions are avoided in difficult cases. whatever way we go with this one, there will be problems. RfA isn't broken, it is just perhaps not always the best way of doing things. --Doc 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frontline Ministries International

Was there a problem with my sources for this article? FMI's own webpage is easy to find, their literature is a bit harder to find but I've personally read it, the newspaper articles about them are fairly easy to find, and the DVD is a little harder to find but I've personally seen it. Their stated position is that their leadership heals the blind in Africa, etc. so I see no reason this should be left out of the article.

Knock it off. You are pushing an agenda see WP:NPOV WP:V etc. --Doc 10:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Werbe Article

So apparently, recorded statements straight from the horse's mouth are not acceptable as sources? --John Alder 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Talking horses? --Doc 10:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Non-notability

Why are you marking WP:NNOT as rejected? I realize that theres like .. four people.. that want this page marked as rejected. But please understand that there are more than 4 people that have been working on this proposal, and are *still* working on it. We have not come to a consensus rejecting this proposal - but we should, on the talk page. So please, don't be presumptuous with your edits. Just because you don't like the proposal, doesn't mean you have to change the page to reflect that. Fresheneesz 20:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do like the idea of not using notability. But notability is constantly used as a criterion by a good number of the community. The idea that it shouldn't be used has often been argued and just as often been rejected. The idea has no consensus, indeed probably even has a majority against it. Ergo that idea has been rejected by the community.--Doc 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly that. The idea has no consensus - in either direction. Thus it is not a rejected idea, but an ongoing one. The community has not rejected it, you have.

You also decided to remove my straw poll. I'm going to replace it, and as I told Radiant: removing peoples comments on a talk page is considered vandalism. As friendly as I can say this, I will arbitrate if you remove it a second time. Fresheneesz 21:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A poll isn't a comment. It is to initiate a proceedure which lacks consensus at this point. Please don't reopen it.--Doc 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the proposal. However, I can't stand for repetitive removal of my poll. Please consider the arbitration a friendly place to disucss the use of polls, and the validity of removing polls. Thanks. Fresheneesz 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. --Doc 10:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration

Hi, I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration, as promised. Please add your statment to it. Thanks. Fresheneesz 04:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. --Doc 10:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/countering anti-Serb bias on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/countering anti-Serb bias. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Done. --Doc 10:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witch-hunt?

(I figured this was off-topic for the arb page) One man's witch hunt is another man's prevention of disruption, I suppose. Where you see people wanting to sanction Tony and Kelly for a few ill-consider remarks, others see a remarkably different situation. When I look at Tony or Kelly, I see an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior that's been causing harm for a very long time. Maybe I see it this way because I only see their on-wiki editing, and I don't talk to them in a chat room, I don't know. But, this perception is not at all uncommon. I think they ought not get their privileges back just for the asking, because I've seen too many cases of them abusing the admin tools. I suppose there's no convincing anyone of this if they have not already drunk the kool-aid, but this is how many people see it. Friday (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And many people see otherwise. They see blood-thirsty trolls. Anyway, we aren't going to agree on this. But consider one thing, on which we might agree. Given that the evidence page of this case cites little more than incivility against Kelly and Tony (and no-one in the case was being really civil - myself included), and given that AC seldom desysop for less than a capital crime, there was always very little or no chance that case would desysop either of them. There would either be no remedy, or a slap on the wrist. Given that, Kelly and Tony's resignations have given their detractors far more than AC would ever had. So why is even more being demanded? It looks like people want this case to 'punish' them in some way they wouldn't like - push them further than they are willing to go. Tony may be many things, but he's truthful - why do people mistrust his declared intention not to seek re-admining?

Perhaps there is an issue with voluntarily desysoped people regaining their bits. I was resysopped after resigning, and there were some gumbles. But if that's a worry, then invite arbcom to take a look at the 'crat's policy over that issue in general, rather than at two users for personal reasons.

Let's talk about principals rather than people, who have decided (needlessly in my opinion) to remove themselves from the debate. Kelly and Tony have removed themselves as they considered that they were percieved as the problem, let's respect that and concentrate on the outstanding issues, rather than tell them 'no, you may not leave the room, we've not finished beating you yet'--Doc 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that this case was unlikely to result in sactions against Tony or Kelly. Honestly, I couldn't guess- I don't have access to whereever the arbcom talks about such things. They're sure not doing it on the wiki. Brenneman pointed out that Tony has made similiar statements before and then gone back on his word (I have no opinion on how true this is). Kelly herself said she was revoking the offer she made to resign- after people stuck their necks out by asking her to. So, as for why there is a lack of trust there, I don't think that's a hard question to answer. As for "Don't leave, we're not done beating you", to me it sure looks like Tony's getting his punches in right now also, and nobody's holding him in place. As for general principals, if anyone resigns under controversy, I think the crats ought to think twice about giving the privileges back. I'd suggest this to them, but again, I don't know where they talk about such things. Sadly, being critical is too easily labelled "trolling", which is very very wrong IMO. We should welcome criticism rather then fearing it. We have nothing to fear from unreasonable criticism- it'll be seen as such. We have nothing to fear from reasonable criticism- heck, we can use it to improve the project.Friday (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've no access to arbcom's thinking - I'm only going on previous cases. AC have been very loathe to desysop - precisely because it is difficult to get that reversed. And I think that's one of the issues. Let's deperonalise it entirely. Has there ever been a case of someone de-sysopping to avoid a sanction and then the crats giving it back? I know of none. So why is this an issue? And if it is an issue, and not just a 'let's kick certain users' then drop the specific call for a requirement in these two cases, and ask arbcom to make a general ruling that 'people who resign during an RfAr can't get it back without arbcom or RfA agreeing'. Personally, although I think that would be a solution in search of a problem, I'd not oppose it. But let's get off the personalities. --Doc 15:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Principles, then- fair enough. To me it's not clear what affect it would have, even if the arbcom said that people who resign while involved in an RFAr cannot have it back just for the asking. It's not the arbcom who decides, it's the crats. We have one case that someone mentioned of a crat not giving access back to someone who resigned amidst controversy, but that's only one case. I can't draw any conclusions about how the crats would view a re-request for privileges from some particular other editor- maybe others can, I don't know. We need to address the general issue of how we decide who becomes an admin- is it community consensus, or something else? I see no immediate reason to decide in a different way simply because the editor in question was an admin before. The objection of "it's too hard for a former sysop to get the bit back" means nothing to me - if we let the community decide, it's entirely up to the community how easy or hard it is. Friday (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a discussion worth having. Although it seems to me that the theoretical debate is way out of proportion to the practical consequesnces. Carnildo (or whatever his name is) got resysopped - in this one of the thousands of cases the crats have called, they didn't go with the artithmetic. Big deal. The guy seems to be a success as an admin, and if he's trouble at some point then AC can desysopp him. I suspect that most of the grief with that call is less related to the issue, and more to personal animosity towards the subject. There has been far too much of that, and far too much cabal-paranoia and assumptions of bad faith. What we need to do now is to work out what the actual issues are, the ones that have real and not just hypothetical, impact on our ability to forward the project. If we agree with them, the we might solve some problems.--Doc 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Letting our RfA process decide != letting the community decide, anyway. You really need only a handful of motivated malcontents to block an RfA. That's why, just as with deletion debates, we need not just arithmetic, but some experienced person assessing the validity of the objections. Yes, it is different for established users as they are more likely to have rubbed someone up the wrong way at some point. The thing is, there is a balance to be struck. If it is too hard for a de-adminned person to be rehabilitated, then Arbcomm will be reluctant to desysop , and please like me will be reluctant to endorse some of the suggested desysopping mechanisms. And, I suspect you'd agree that it is too difficult to desysopp an admin at present. I'd rather see us work out a process where it was 1) easier to become a sysop 2)easier to remove it if problems emerge in the eyes of established users 3)(relatively) easier to return it, if someone shows signs of change. But test cases aren't a good way of solving this.--Doc 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Absofuckinlutely. I'd rather see us handing out admin buttons to whoever asks for them (and, perhaps, meets some basic objective standards) and then have a way to remove them if there's concern over misuse. It's lightweight, and it puts the effort of having a long discussion back where it belongs. Sadly, I think this idea would be seen as radical lunacy by lots of folks. Friday (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that's not lunacy. That's worth discussing. What I'd like this - some realistic minimum standards: 1.5k edits 3months - then all you need to do is post your name on a public board. If anyone wants to present evidence of unsuitability they can do that. After a week, if there are no objections, then you're in, if there are onjections, then a small group (probably elected by the community) looks at the applicant and either says 'no' (and only if there are good reasons) 'yes' (most of the time) - or 'provisional', (yes, but we'll want to take a look at your activity in two months - if we don't like it we can bust you down without a drawn out process). That same group would scrutinise re-applications too, and experienced users would know that this experienced group understood that admins make enemies (and mistakes) and they'd take that into account. Desysoppings? Simple, on the request of any (say) six administrators, an existing admin has to go through the process again - and can be endorsed, rejected or provisionaly endorsed, by the group, as with any new applicant. If we elect the group, then the process is 'democratic', but it also avoids the 'mob-rule' 'lynch mob' fears that can creep into RfA - we get the best of both. --Doc 17:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship? I proposed this basic idea at Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship/Opposite a ways back. Friday (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...comparing the arbcom to the instigators of the French Revolutionary Terror?

..."certain people conducted an intemperate shouting match - abusing the crats and even, at one point, comparing the arbcom to the instigators of the French Revolutionary Terror ('Committee on Public Saftey')."[1] Just curious, do you mean me? [2] Because when I wrote it, I thought my post was clearly in defense of the arbcom, not an attack on it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it was posted on AN in response to JamesF some days ago. I'll diff hunt later. --Doc 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward G. Winter deletion

Hi. On September 14 you deleted the article on Edward G. Winter commenting that it was "scurrilous and unreferenced - marginal notability anyway". Winter is a well known chess historian who has written a number of books and whose "Chess Notes" column has over the years received input from any number of well known players and authors. As far as I can see, the article was never nominated for deletion, and it certainly doesn't not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion (as you will of course know, an article being "scurrilous and unreferenced" is in itself not a reason to delete it out of process). I have, therefore, restored it. Regards--Camembert 12:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad move. You really should have asked me about that, I had very good reasons to delete it. Replied further via e-mail.--Doc 13:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is the version that got deleted, couldn't we simply recreate it without the bizarro offending stuff at in the second and third paras? Would you be opposed to me doing that in the meantime? He certainly seems worthy of a fair, accurate entry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to anyone recreating an article on this guy, providing they are (as ever) willing to take responsibility for what they post. I deleted it, because something needed done and I wasn't willing to sort the crap from the verifiable - since he isn't terribly notable, I figured we could do without the article until and unless someone wanted to write a good one. However, please make sure it conforms to WP:LIVING and WP:V at all points - and then watch it closely in case of any malicious vandalism later.--Doc 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You have my word that I'll keep an eye on it. I'll stub it now and get some expansions on it tonight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Good luck with it. --Doc 17:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition

I was reading Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition, and I saw that you had written: "I've moved on from this discussion. WP:DENY is policy, as it is happening. Slap whatever tag you like on it, that's still the case. Mark it was 'rejected' if you like, makes no odds. The debate isn't here anymore." I think CSD G5 ("delete pages created by banned users while they were banned") is related to 'Deny recognition', and I wanted to point out two cases where speedy deletion of pages created by banned users (while banned) has disrupted, or nearly did disrupt, good-faith discussion (by deleting or proposing to delete said discussion). These cases were/are here and here. If these are examples of WP:DENY "happening", as you put it, then I believe it is being (unintentionally) mis-used to delete content contributed by others. Pouring the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. I'd welcome comments at WP:DENY, the deletion review, and the talk page of WP:CSD. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There are obviously going to be exceptions to every rule. As I've said, I'm going to sensibly apply this, I think we're all talked out. --Doc 00:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Uberlol

Hiya Doc. Thank you for helping me out last time with that guy using my name as his wiki ID.

Unfortunately he has migrated the exact same wiki user page to his new user account "Uberlol" - is there anything you can do about it?

?--Doc 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awa' an' bile yer heid

Since my own wikibreak seems to be going as well as yours, I thought I would drop by and annoy you. :-P --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert J. Howe deletion

Hi - Just wondering why the Robert J. Howe article was deleted? Certainly not a household name, but a well-published science fiction short story writer (with works in Analog, Salon), and editor of the recent Coney Island Wonder Stories.PaulLev 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

replied via e-mail.--Doc 08:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

noted. --Doc 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delection of template

Why did you delete 'Template:Pacifism 4'? Shouldnt there have been a discussion first? I realise it was mildly self mocking, but is an comprimise position which doesnt insult. Pydos 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I? If I did it was 6 months ago. We've moved on. I don't do userboxes. See WP:GUS for what happened.--Doc 14:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleshlight deletion review

I've made a comment on your premature closing of the third afd of the fleshlight article [3]. It strikes me as an unnecessarily bureaucratic way of handling what was a fairly straightforward disputed speedy. Our undeletion policy in such cases has long been to put possibly deletable restored speedies on AfD straight away. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have been fine with that, if someone had actually closed the DRV. AfD would perhaps have been a better option than DRV - but both at once is silly. I'm afraid I didn't read the policy (I never do), I just used common sense. You don't try the same case simmultaneously in two courts.--Doc 09:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giano unblocked

I have unblocked User:Giano II, on the basis that 1) I find it inappropriate to block the nominal focus of an RFAr for evidence added on the evidence page, and 2) because you didn't warn him--I don't quite see why you would take his edit to be the beginning of a rampage that needed to be stopped? And 3) because it seems provocative to institute explicitly a "cooling-off block" for input in a case where the whole notion of "cooling-off" blocks against established users has been largely put in question. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

Added to which, I am not sure how much "cooling down" he still required 3.5 hours after the edit complained of. No evidence of any "heat" in his edits since that one. This also smacks a bit of making a WP:POINT.

Perhaps we should encourage Giano to post his comments off-wiki too, since that seems to be beyond sanction. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, there was a consensus for that block (albeit a minor one) at WP:ANI. --Crimsone 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable. 1) 3 hours is not disrupting his ability to respond to the RfAr - and as you say he's 'nominal' so that reason is pure wikilawyering. 2) Warn him! He's not a neewbie that needs pointed to WP:CIVIL etc, he knows what he's doing. I simply sent out a clear message that this is unacceptable. 3) WTF?

More importantly, I posted my block to ANI for review, knowing it would be questioned. There is a clear consensus of support there. So you have just 1) reverted me wthout prior discussion - when I've been on line and IRC available to discuss. That's wheel waring pure and simple - and has been deemed unacceptable by arbcom. 2) Ignored the clear consensus on ANI. This seems like a partisan move on your part, and I am asking you to replace the block and discuss the matter on ANI. I will abide by consensus there, I ask you to do likewise.--Doc 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I won't revert my action, but there are about a thousand admins who may; that's surely enough. Let's see if any of them, when it comes to the pinch, thinks an editor suddenly needs to "cool down" that long after making a comment. (In my opinion, a far less incivil comment than the one he was responding to, weirdly posted by Cyde as evidence in favor of Kelly Martin, but I suppose your mileage may vary.) P. S. If you still don't understand my unblocking reasons 1) and 3) tomorrow, please let me know, and I'll elaborate. It's getting very late in my timezone now. Bishonen | talk 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

Bloody hell, you want to enter a plea in mitigation for that post? I don't know, or care what Cyde said Kelly wrote - that smacks of the childish 'but she said first...' response. You don't think a post like that merits a three hour block??? You want to stick up for this guy??? No, cut the wikilawyering and explain that, because I totally don't get it. And I'm going to post no more, becase right now I am very very angry and confused. If wikipedia is a place where that type of thing is tollerated in the slightest, then I quit. --Doc 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI now shows some very strong reasoning and a reasonable consensus in favour of the block. --Crimsone 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So why is it not reinstated? I actually expected someone to extend it to 24 hours or longer - not unblock. In fact, Bishonen, don't bother responding here if your going to defend yourself. I'm done with you just now.--Doc 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How charmingly you speak to me. Don't worry, this message is merely to state that I won't bother you again. Bishonen | talk 02:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

All I said, is there is no possible justification for your action. If you are going to insist in defending the indefensible, and by implication Giano's hateful speech, then we have nothing further to discuss. I folk will admit mistakes, I'm always happy to wipe the slate.--Doc 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, quadruple edit conflict at ANI, so I'll just vent here, with totally arbitrary scores. Giano's comment was unacceptable. No real substantial debate on that. He's been around for donkey's years and should have known better. -1 Kelly's personal attack via Cyde didn't register much complaint. +1 (So, in "good for the goose" mode had he commented only on the blog, would he have been ok?) He did make comments about Kelly directly. -1 So he's "down one" over all at this stage, but... It was a bit old by the time you blocked, and you did not warn him. +1 The best way to resolve this would be for us to make very clear that while Cyde's posting was totally unacceptable, Giano's response was not justified. Otherwise his feelings of "inequitable justice" will have some basis. - brenneman ^{L} 02:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

?Kelly and Tony have both lost their adminship basically for incivility. And Giano, with a history of incivility, gets unblocked from a three hour block? And a bunch of wikilawyers trying either to defend him or to change the subject. It is ridiculous - totally and utterly inequitable. Anyway what type of defence is 'she called me a [insert nasty word] first"? I don't let my 6yr old off with that one. That's not mitigation.

?I should have warned him? Of what? That personal attacks aren't allowed? He knows that full well. But this should not be about me and my block anyway - that's a smokescreen.

?It was old. So what? It was unacceptable and a clear message needed sending. I didn't look at the clock at all to be honest.

?Bishonen's unblock was outrageous. If she can't see that it was wrong, then she should be desysopped, as either too partisan or too incompetent.

Bottom line is that Giano should not have posted that. No way. But more to the point any right-thinking wikipedian should condemn it without hesitation, 'but', or mitigation. But as much as you say 'no real substantial debate on that' - that's what we've had. We've a bunch of people who are so much at war, that they are unable to condemn the warcrimes on their own side. Free-passes are being handed out, and ridiculous and frankly dishonust justifications being used. Why has Geogre jumped to Giano's defence? Why not just keep silent, or at least condemn the incivility, but no, he's more interested in making this about Cyde, Kelly, or wikilawyering about my block. I've had it with this, and I've almost had it with Wikipedia. --Doc 02:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do condemn Giano's edit without hesitation. I prevaricate only slightly at the lack of warning, he should have known better. I did and still do support the block. My hesitation is only based upon the question below. Experiance has shown that "cooling off" doesn't work here. Ther e are a few voices in the maddening crowd at ANI who are trying to strike some middle ground. Don't let the "my siade is right" shouting drown that out, eh? - brenneman ^{L} 03:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've unwatched the RfAr. I'm allowing myself to be baited, and those I'm trying to discuss with are way past rational discourse. I'll feed their appetites no longer. It seems it is now open season on incivility and virtual flaming. Erudite barbarism and general nastiness wins the day.--Doc 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That cool-off block

Hi Doc, A quick question if I may? Was as the purpose of your block to stop Giano from editing for 3 hours, or to change the way he behaves? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in an ideal world, the second would obviously be the desired effect. But we obviously don't santion hateful speach anymore.--Doc 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, What do you mean by 'hateful'? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Giano's post.--Doc 09:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

When I say that X is hateful, I mean that X deserves to be hated. I have read Giano's post and I find it unpleasant, scatalogical and sad. It doesn't make me angry, or fill me with hate. So perhaps what you mean by hateful is different to what I mean? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I said 'hateful' not 'hated' or 'hate-able. When I say hateful, I mean 'full of hate'/spite/malice and anger. That's how I read his post.--Doc 13:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps 'hate-filled' might have been better than 'hateful'? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you really trying to pick a fight over a word on a talk page? Hateful: Manifesting hate or hatred; malignant; malevolent. [Archaic or R.] "And worse than death, to view with hateful eyes His rival's conquest.(Dryden).--Doc 13:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, ignore him. It's not worth what this is (presumably) doing to your blood pressure. Wikipedia may be starting to die under the weight of ... (I can't think of a word right now that someone won't object to as being uncivil, but you know what I mean), but I've decided to try to avoid getting emotionally involved in its fate. I just cruise along, fixing what I can but avoiding fights. I can't save WP by myself, and I'm beginning to doubt there are enough editors like you and me all together to save it. -- Donald Albury 15:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually my blood pressure is rather low today. I kept at it yesterday, trying to appeal to the rationality and better nature of certain people. I realise now that that's a waste of time. Rationality and/or good faith are somewhat lacking. So, I've unwatched he pages. I'm optimistic that sensible people will draw their own conculions. Ultimately, if I'm wrong, I will eventually leave Wikipedia. But not yet.--Doc 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(If anyone reads this thread and feels like trolling - don't bother - I'll simply remove your comments unread. --Doc 17:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

My reply to you is on my talk page. No need to read it if you don't want. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I wont't then.--Doc 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sean parker-perry

Hi Doc

I refer to your 'lame' editing war comment on the above page.

I am Sean Parker-Perry and I express the deepest concern that a person who has been maliciousley editing the sites of four politicians:

1) Sean Parker-Perry 2)Lord Pendry 3) Cllr roy oldham CBE 4) jonny reynolds

the user name 'jonnyreynolds' serves to confurse the issue as he is an employee of a local Member of Parliament. Under the misuse of computers Act 1990 this is a criminal offence which has been reported to Greater Manchester Police.

I will be taking legal action regarding this stressful and damaging episode and would be grateful if you could give me details of the user: jonnyreynolds, failing this the registered address of Wikipedia.

if you or any representative from Wikipedia wish to discuss the issue further please email me at seanparkerperry@hotmail.com

regards

Councillor Sean Parker-Perry

Doc,

Further to last.

The picture of Sean Parker-Perry on Wikipedia is copyright to Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council.

I would be grateful if you could inform me who was authorised to release this for general use?

I am only a volunteer administrator, and in no manner a representative of the foundation. If you can supply direct links to establish malicious or libelous editing, an administrator will take the appropriate action in regard to this user. However, in my investigation of the page histories, whilst I could see edit warign over links and phrases, I could find nothing I would interprete as malicious or libelous. Of course, I could have missed it. The foundation may be contacted at: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 200 2nd Ave. South #358 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313 USA --Doc 17:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)