Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:40, 13 October 2006

User:Doc glasgow/tidy

Shaun Bruce deletion

Hi Doc,

I'm new to Misplaced Pages (so I don't even know that I am posting in the right place) and recently changed an article about current mayoral candidate for Toronto, Shaun Bruce. I completely understand why you wanted the original information deleted quickly, it was biased and politically driven, however I did not write that. Last night I spent a lot of time writing an unbiased biography (although short) that had nothing to do with his current campaign, just about the fact that he was running and a short history. I followed Scott Yee's biography because Shaun is a more credible and media covered candidate than Scott (he is projected to get thousands of votes, whereas Scott is projected to get a few hundred) and so I thought it would be good to base the bio on that. He had a link from the Toronto municipal election, 2006 page, and has had a ton of news coverage, local and national, so I thought he was worth writing about.

I'm confused because I read the bio requirements, and didn't put anything to do with his current campaign, so I dont understand how it was 'political puff', which I think was what you called it. Can you please take a second look at the bio I put up yesterday and rethink it. Any suggestions you could give me for future posts would be greatly appreciated as well.

Thanks so much, ksimps01

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)

Your comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Deny recognition

I was reading Misplaced Pages 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)

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 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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).

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. --Doc 02:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)