Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giano II (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 24 December 2007 (→Giano II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Doc glasgow/tidy

deletion

Hi, I only just noticed you deleted List of convicted or indicted religious leaders about a month ago. You may not have noticed that it went under for deletion earlier and resulted in no consensus. Regardless, if I recall correctly, most/all of the claims were sourced in the individuals articles and not the page itself. I understand that they should have been sourced in the list as well, but without the history it's hard for someone to add the sources. I'd appreciate if you would restore the article (with all entries removed from the list, if you like) so the history is available for editors to add them back with sources. Thanks RB972 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to source all the entries? I also think listing indicted along with convicted has BLP problems. What about restricting it to actual convictions? --Doc 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I will source them if nobody else beats me to it. I'm not convinced it's a BLP problem to have a list of indicted. Several of the indicted either died before they were tried or fled, and I think in those cases that they were or are indicted is particularly relevant. Being on the same page as convicted is probably the wrong way to go about it, though. This was something that was discussed in the AFD. I expect there are others who are interested in discussing this, but until you restore at least part of the article they probably have no idea it's not even there anymore (like I was until recently). RB972 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I can put it in your userspace until the BLP problems are addressed, then you can move it back. But we cannot have a list without each entry cited. As for "indicted" there are two problems 1) they cannot be in the same list as those convicted, lest we give the (libellous) impression that they were convicted. 2) people who are indicted are sometimes subsequently found innocent, or the case collapses as unsubstantiated or tendentious.--Doc 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, put it in my userspace and I'll source it and move it back as List of convicted religious leaders. RB972 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All yours.--Doc 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Hello, Doc. I'm not sure if you remember me, but I reported a user in the BLP Noticeboard. You blocked this user for a week.
Now, a new account with a very similar name of that user, is editing on the articles I reported and other fews. This new user is adding the same uncited information. The new account is FatChris1.
I'll wait to your response and see if it is necessary to report it as a sucker sockpuppeteer. Reply here, thank you.--Tasc0 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall what this is about, or see what the problem is?--Doc 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? You blocked this user so I'm asking you as an admin, how to address this situation. Do you think is necessary to report this as sockpuppetry issue? Or can you handle with the situation?

I linked the thread where you replied saying to blocked this user. I really don't understand your point here.--Tasc0 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Somehow, they archived the thread after I posted it here.

You can see it here. Now I think you may know what I'm talking about.--Tasc0 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No reply?--Tasc0 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, you're not reading this. Okay. Bye.--Tasc0 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk and editors who claim to be vanishing

BTW I completely agree with your assessment on deleting user talk pages- I've been trying to discourage this practice for a while now. A couple weeks ago I removed mention of "right to vanish" from the user page guideline. So far nobody has complained. I think this silly notion of "right to vanish" is way overblown- it should just mean "you can leave any time and nobody will chase you down", but lots of people read it as "if you claim to be leaving, we'll give you a pack of smokes, last meal, and grant all your parting requests." If we tend to ignore people who claim to be leaving instead of fawning all over them, we'll help encourage a reduced-drama environment. Friday (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Especially since some users are simply using it to wipe their wiki-slate.--Doc 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

May I ask...

...why you restored Category:Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping after it had been deleted per a CFD discussion? I can find no evidence of a deletion review or any discussion with the closing admin. I might consider the possibility that you discussed it with him off-wiki, but it's unlikely that you would use "nonsense deletion" as your restoration summary had you done that. I would appreciate your clarifications on the matter. Thanks, Black Falcon 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There was obviously no consensus to delete it - and the closing admin keeps making terrible closures. I called him on one yesterday, and this was my payback, I think. It was closed the same time as the silly recall category closure, which was overturned in 20 min on DRV. I suppose I could have gone to DRV, but there seemed little point. You can take it there if you want, but the result is pretty inevitable. Personally, I don't care that much really.--Doc 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "obviously no consensus to delete" is an accurate characterisation, given that most of the "keep" comments were simple WP:ILIKEIT votes that failed to answer the key questions of why the category can't be replaced by a simple userpage notice (i.e. why a grouping of users is useful) and how it is different joke categories such as Category:Userpages That Are Full Of LOL (deleted). Also, it just doesn't look good (appearances aren't everything, but they are important) when a joke category for admins is speedily restored after a delete closure, but similar categories for non-admins are consistently deleted and, if recreated, re-deleted per CSD G4.

Your opinion that "the closing admin keeps making terrible closures" is unfair, I think: jc37 tends to close controversial discussions (at CFD and UCFD), which naturally means that many will disagree with his closures. (You may be interested in reading User:Jc37/Sandbox/Closure, which provides a more detailed explanation of the recall category closure.) In any case, his closure of the recall category should have no bearing on his closure of this category.

Would you please re-delete the category – leave it populated if you like – and pursue DRV (and/or discussion with jc37) if you feel that it should exist? I'm not asking this so that process is followed, but rather because: (a) I can honestly see no encyclopedic value in the category, and (b) I can't see how the CFD discussion would justify a "keep" closure, based on the quality of the arguments offered. – Black Falcon 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the above (as I don't wish to interrupt your discussion), unless requested. I merely want to clarify that in no way shape or form was any closure I have ever made indicative of "payback". After Midnight, Black Falcon, and I (and others, though it varies who and how often. VegaDark has returned, for example) tend to close WP:UCFD discussions. I tend to not close the alma mater discussions, which I believe left only 2 to close. And so I closed them. I suppose one could argue whether I'm a "regular" at closing DRV discussions (I don't believe I am, though I have done so before), but good luck claiming I'm not a regular at WP:UCFD. Personally I'm just tired of being accused of things which I'm not, and which I feel aren't true. I'd like just a little more good faith. Anyway, please feel free to continue your discussion. I was considering re-deleting per G4 (recreation), but I'd rather see what can come of discussion. - jc37 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Aggh. What? Oh, whatever. I created this in a ten seconds to make the useful, non-disruptive, point that admins should hold themselves open to constructive criticism without the nonsense of a recall process. Quite a number of respected admins thought it was valuable and added themselves. Then someone Cfd'd it - without discussing their concerns with me at all. I didn't comment on the cfd, as I didn't really care, and there was never going to be a consensus to delete anyway. Then Jc37 pulls a rather silly closure - with some new idea I don't even understand. The closure was clearly against consensus - and like his closure of the recall category cfd minutes before, would have been overturned on DRV in 10 seconds. I simply got annoyed (my bad) and reversed his nonsense (so trout slap me if I should have gone through the paperwork of a DRV). Now more process wonking? Really I don't care, take it to DRV if you must. (You can't delete it as a G4, since it is not "a recreation of deleted material", but an undeletion. So you can do an IAR re deletion if you want - but that would be out of process and result in you needing troutslapped as hard as me for wheel warring. So do whatever makes you happy.--Doc 13:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're essentially presenting me with a fait accompli. You did an out-of-process undeletion without providing any meaningful reason ("nonsense" is not meaningful) and now note that I can't re-delete per CSD G4 without it constituting wheel-warring. ... That's not exactly a prime example of an aversion to process-wonking. Moreover, whereas before we would have needed one deletion review to evaluate the CFD, now we likely need two: one for the invalid speedy undeletion and, if reversed, another for the CFD. Finally, as the original creator of the category, you should not have acted on a judgment about the consensus reached in the discussion. I ask you to reconsider your decision. – Black Falcon 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly past caring.--Doc 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quackery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall involvement in this.--Doc 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion, then. You were in the article history but perhaps your edits were minor. —Whig (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Larry Pinkney

You protected the page and referred to OTRS. Is it safe to unprotect the page now, or is there ongoing issues? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't do OTRS anymore. After so many months it probably is safe, but I can't recall the ticket, and I don't have access to OTRS any longer to check. I'll try to someone else to take a look.--Doc 07:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

sigh.--Doc 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this still going on? I think sighing is justfied now... Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be very unnecessary, and would definitely lead to this being taken to arbcom. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Me sighing and chosing to work on something else will "definitely lead to this being taken to arbcom"? I was the one that originally told Doc that he should stop sighing. Quite why you are responding to my off-topic comment in that vein with some stuff about arbcom, I'm not quite sure. Just to be clear, the above was my way of saying to Doc that I'm sighing and leaving this well alone. What Doc does is up to him. Carcharoth (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've lost track of these, so I can't remember whether I commented or not. However, it is not on my watchlist, and I will not be looking in again. I'm just going to sit in the corner now and sigh, and if anyone wants to poke me with a stick I shall simply sigh louder. ;) --Doc 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Carl Hewitt

Doc, would you mind casting an uninvolved eye over something? There has been trouble for a long time on Carl Hewitt, including an ArbCom case, with allegations that he is being harassed by WP, and counter-allegations that someone is using the page to promote him. I'm not familar with the case, so I don't know the details. The article is indefinitely protected as a result of the dispute.

Someone, presumably a Wikipedian, tipped off a freelancer, and the Observer published a brief story on it. Now, people keep posting links to the article on the talk page, and restored it when it's removed. I've therefore protected the talk page on BLP grounds (I'm intending the protection for a short time only), because the article can't be edited, and the Observer piece is too self-referential to be used as a source so there's no need to keep discussing it on talk. Viridae supported the protection, but others are objecting. Some discussion here, but mainly here. If you could give an opinion, it would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this has been dealt with. SlimVirgin 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chickenology Encyclopedia

Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind telling why?--Doc 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shamrock houston.jpg

Thanks for letting me know. This image fits two Misplaced Pages acceptable use criteria, which are already carefully explained on the image page. The notice gives no acknowledgement that these were even read. I've added a dispute tag. This is acceptable non-free fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so thorough (both times)! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the whole thing. Sloppy on my part.--Doc 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany

Easy-peasy! Congratulations! Giano (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And to you for yours. Thanks for the encouragement, I actually enjoyed that. Maybe another soon.--Doc 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Beware it can become addictive! Giano (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Do you realize you've reverted three times within a short while? ...oy, and now you've reverted me, too. That's four. You should block yourself for 3RR vio. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

That would be a pity, why not just revert back to last version by me. I don't mind - honestly! Giano (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I've reverted Giano twice and you only once. Bishonen, Giano, please, this isn't helpful. If you have a grievance the fist step is to post a complaint to the channel owners. Of course people should not use such language, but this is not the way to pursue it, and you know it. You are only going to stir up an unhelpful drama. Have you filed a complaint?--Doc 14:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I condemn utterly anyone using such language. If this has occurred, and is substantiated, the channel owner should seek assurances that it will not be repeated, and if such are not forthcoming, the culprit should be banned. I suggest you post the logs to JamesF. I'm happy to lobby him to take any required action.--Doc 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The channel owners and ops don't care and do nothing. The editorship of this encyclopedia has the right to know how their rulers behave, and exactly what does happen in that channel. You habe been there when these things happen, you know it is true. Giano (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you reported it to them? Yes, I have told people to watch their mouths in that channel (no doubt I've slipped up myself at times), although I do not recall the language you refer to.--Doc 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this isn't just a prelude to posting logs to force the privacy issue, that truly would be viewed as pathetic.--Doc 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am referiiing to Tony Sidaway repeatedly refrring to a femail admin as a Bastard bitch from hell because he wishes to drive her from the channel. Why exactly is such a person permitted to remain there when he is not an admin - is he useful? Giano (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to post me the logs, I will be happy to take this up with the channel owners personally. I will then be able to say if they take it seriously or not.--Doc 15:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no need to post the logs, the channel was full, would you like a list of brave admins who witnessed the attack? - The chanel owners will do nothing! Giano (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted the channel owners, but without substantiation how can they act? Particularly if the accused denies it? Please post the logs to me or to them. Until you have done that, there can be no justification for assuming they will not act.--Doc 15:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't ever act. They know full well where the logs are. You yourself were there when the last incident happened, why not forward them yourself? The channel is a disgrace! As the "persom" says in the logs it is a chanel where admins discuss problem users, yet he is allowed to sit in there and listen and comment - why? I repeat is he useful? Giano (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any references to the language you refer to in the logs I have.--Doc 15:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems others can and that Tony's acess to the channel has been temporarily removed by User:Mark - let's hope it becomes permanent. Giano (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, repeat is/was he useful? Giano (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to judge that. However, now having seen the logs, I concur that Tony's remarks were inflammatory, and that the channel ops should act to ensure there are no repeats. If that means permanently banning, so be it, but I always prefer reform and redemption. It seems however that your assertion that the ops do nothing has proved, in this particular case, to be premature.--Doc 15:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't regard a "temporary ban" after so much head banging totally acceptable do you? It is better than nothing I suppose, assuming one of his cronies has not let him n through the back door by now. Which is what is likely to happen Giano (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bans should be preventative. That takes as long as it takes. I will stand guard at the backdoor.--Doc 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't find that language? You have mail. You have the relevant log. In case you, too, assume I'm making it up, please compare it with one of the many logs produced by the many lurkers in the channel. I think Lar logs 24/7, for instance. BTW, I've removed a few lines (nothing of the lightest significance) from the log I sent, trying to make sure your "E-mail this user" function would be able to manage my message; but if you give me your e-mail address, I can replace that log with a pixel-perfect one. And, as distasteful as it is, I can dig out the log of the ancient event being referred to, too--the original "bastard bitch from hell" incident from September 2006. I'd really rather not go into such ancient history, but since I'm accused of lying, I'm prepared to prove I'm not. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

I have seen the logs now, thanks for sending them. The language is, as you say, unacceptable.--Doc 15:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What is Tony doing at that channel in the first place? What constitutes the entitlement to access? Being liked by Forrester is one. Being an admin is not as admins are kickbanned by non-admins (liked by Forrester) on the whim. So, is there anything but being liked by Forrester in the rules? And, again, what is Tony doing there? --Irpen 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking me this?--Doc 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you are on of the channel's sysops. That's why. --Irpen 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that explains your question. However, I am not thankfully in that position.--Doc 01:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano II

Hi. I noticed you unblocked Giano 61 minutes after the placement of the original 1 hour/3RR block. I had already reduced the 24 hour block by making it 15 minutes for the original tariff less time served - but erring on the side of caution. Giano's block would have expired at most 5 minutes after you lifted it... :~) I would also comment that I gave notice of my actions to User:Coredesat who was gracious enough to say that they would not contest the reduction, so hopefully your actions will have the same reaction. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, missed that. It was the 24 hour I was removing. A 24 block for unspecified reasons was never going to be helpful.--Doc 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Great Minds... and Fools Seldom Differ!" ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping