User talk:Doc9871

71.183.181.200 and Eagles (band) article

On a mostly unrelated issue from our Hanoi friend, I read your latest post more closely and didm't realize it was you who was in danger of violating 3RR. It wouldn't take much for someone to find out you and I have conversing often lately. If the IP reverts again, I think we both should refrain from undoing the edit and let someone else handle it so it doesn't look like we are tag-teaming him, even though the situation arose innocently and we never discussed prior to my revert that I should jump in. Is that cool? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If they add it again I will take them to WP:3RRNB - the reason I mentioned 3RR is because it may not be a clear-cut exemption to 3RR. For me, that is: you are free to revert him at least twice more if he is foolish enough to restore it. There's no tag-teaming to worry about: the WP:BURDEN is on them, and their edit is provably false so far. We can't allow him to reinsert it because it simply isn't true. Doc talk 01:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK sounds goood. I forgot to add that yes, he should be reported for edit warring if he does it again, regardless. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'll hunt for more IPs when I get home - on a mobile right now and that stuff is impossible to do on an iPhone. A profile is emerging, and his switching from The Carpenters to the Eagles is not surprising, as these types usually get chased off their favorite topics after awhile. They usually return to them as well. More later - Cheers :>

Saw this change and I instinctively reverted as it is almost certainly you-know-who. Looked into it further and it appears to be accurate so I undid my revert. Just letting you know I'm still keeping an eye out, but I do have a question. I'm not entirely confident in my sources I have been using to check his changes. Is there a good source you know of to check these sorts of things? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I usually check with allmusic since I was told long ago that they are a reliable source (unlike something like WP or IMDB where anyone can edit). It's him alright, and hopefully he's beginning to understand that he better stop vandalizing and keep his edits accurate. I'm not overly confident about it, but stranger things have happened. Thanks for the note! Doc talk 16:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the IP's edit to the Long Run album, which I just reverted, is totally bogus. Those songs were not released as singles, and the last "single" (and its "B" side) that he included on the album a) isn't on the album to begin with and b) certainly was not released as a single 10 years after the album came out. Still Got the Blues (For You) is a Gary Moore song - look familiar?[1] Same pest, same bullshit edits. As you noted he mixes in truth with fiction sometimes. Doc talk 02:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" request for formal mediation

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Retirees

Just a word in defence of retirees. I retired because I couldn't find the time to research and source my contributions to the standard required. And I don't think there are many people whoe seek acknowledgement in what is, after all, a voluntary endeavour. Any voluntary activity isn't really binary: you're not either in or out. If a casual browser can add something, then maybe they should be allowed out of retirement now and again ? Having said all that, I can't stand people who flounce out. If you want recognition, go on TV. 86.12.129.2 (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what this is regarding. I support the right to retire, or not to retire, and I did a complete 180° long ago on my views on anonymous IP editing. When editors intentionally abuse anonymous editing is usually when I get perturbed about it. Cheers :> Doc talk 10:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a section on your Talk page slagging flouncing retirees. Just thought I'd put our side of the argument, but then realised I agrre with you. 86.12.129.2 (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh - I took most of that from a few essays on the matter. I feel bad for those good editors that have retired, but I see it as them "giving up" on this as well. So I have little sympathy. The wiki will only truly die when the Google hits for everything one looks up no longer jumps to Wikipedia. Until then, the old guard will be replaced by the new guard, similar to many cycles in this world. Doc talk 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Landry Fields' father

Landry Fields' father Steve played at Miami of Ohio, not Stanford. The cited reference states this clearly. This is my first time doing something like this, apologies if I have made any errors in etiquette. Purplo (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No you didn't: I guess I did. You are correct that his father played for Miami of Ohio, and another editor just realized the same thing and corrected the edit to what you changed it to.[2] Sorry about my error, but this page has been hit a lot recently and I thought you were changing Landry's alma mater to Miami of Ohio when in fact you were 100% correct in your edit. Sorry 'bout that! Cheers :> Doc talk 03:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Not sure what you think I meant, but it wouldn't hurt you to leave comments where they are. -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't move anything but the hat on the closed discussion. Adding to it after it was closed was encouraging more comments... after it was closed. That could be considered "sticky" in anyone's book. You want the "Final thought"? Have at it. I may opine a lot myself around here, but at 40% article space edits, I've got a somewhat decent balance to my contributions. At 13% article space edits, you may want to rethink your role here and stop attempting to be "the sole voice of reason" quite so often. Making a mountain out of a molehill works sometimes, but it's good to know when to move on. "Take care of yourself... and each other". Cheers... Doc talk 15:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a strong desire to see problematic behavior corrected, but I hold those in positions of responsibility to a higher standard. I fail to see anything that was stopping Risker from simply re-blocking the guy with a new block rationale. But to leave a rationale in place that set new precedent and was highly interpretive of the policies, especially when a large number of people had problems with it just seems stubborn. I have no problem with admins doing what they need to do, as long as they can intelligently explain why they did it and how that lines up with the policies we have in place. If you're going to make up new rules off the cuff, expect people to make noise about it. Simply being supportive and saying 'we trust you' is fine in some situations, but while we're doing that, a user sits under a block that they potentially shouldn't be. Do things right or don't do them. As for your 40%, if I didn't care about pushing for good behavior, my percentage would be there too, and probably even higher. But I care. Sue me for that if you wish. -- Avanu (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I might also mention that it isn't a sign that I'm not contributing to have a lot of edits to article Talkpages as well. I often run into people who don't initially agree with an edit and since we're the encyclopedia that anyone can have an opinion on, we have to sit there and educate editors about why this or that should happen, avoid an edit war, and wait around until people see some obvious consensus. It slows things down, but it is the way Wikipedia works. -- Avanu (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

40% ain't that great as far as the "content creators" are concerned, I can tell you. That means I'm blabbering over half the time. Blocking for "Not here to build an encyclopedia", as has been said already, is hardly a new precedent. That user was not the one to make a big stink over, and I'm sorry you didn't see that as far away as I and others clearly did. You should trust the judgement of our admins, not blindly, but especially when dealing with some random troll that was obviously handled appropriately. If you don't choose your "battles" wisely you run the risk of losing credibility. Believe that or not. "Please always do your best to live up to that trust and bear that responsibility with honor." Is this really supposed to be advice to be taken to heart by all admins? Or was it just getting a "last word" in on a closed discussion that didn't go the way you thought it should? Good luck, Avanu. Doc talk 16:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion went exactly the way it should. The user was re-blocked with a new and more valid basis in policy. The only concern would be that it is essentially ArbCom saying "trust us", *but* they are specifically set up to deal with complicated situations, so we need to have faith that their hidden rationale is sufficient. And *that* makes it a good block rationale. It only took a moment for Roger to re-enact the block, and what is most surprising is that Risker didn't just do that in the first place. Personally, I think Admins should be given a tremendous amount of leeway in when they feel they need to use the tools, but that kind of latitude requires an equal measure of responsibility to the community at large. And one example of that is that when they take a strong action, they back it up with solid reasons. -- Avanu (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Since NewtonGeek was never unblocked, he could not have been re-blocked: the block rationale was changed. I assume it's because the guy was e-mailing every Arb left and right and just not on the level in general. This was not the poster-child of an unfair block, but there will be more out there, I'm sure. Cheers... Doc talk 16:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, I am reminded of a core principle when you deal with a manager/boss. When you do things that don't acknowledge the authority of the boss, whatever the situation is, no matter how small, it tends to make it worse. You can screw up really bad, but if you go to the boss humbly and say "Boss, I know you said to do X and I tried and screwed up", they are more likely to be ok with it than if you just decided to not heed their request and do your own thing. In other words, it is often not the act itself, but the way we handle it that matters, especially when you are dealing with a person in authority.

In the case of an Admin, many times their role puts them into a position of authority, BUT our system at Wikipedia puts every action of an Admin subject to community review. Admins don't always respond well to being told their action was wrong, and while I acknowledge that it is human nature to be resistant to correction, and while I acknowledge that our consensus-based system may not be the best approach, Admins need to graciously accept the community's input and unfortunately the current system is what we have here.

When Admins fail to recognize policy and guidelines as having authority over their own actions, and fail to accept a critical review, then we generally end up in these stupid debates. I say 'stupid' because they would be easy to avoid and easy to resolve quickly, but people seem to fall into the "don't hassle the admin camp" or, like me, into the "follow the rules camp". But don't think this means I am always hellbent on one side or the other. BWilkins was getting a lot of flack recently at Jimbo's page, and I feel like it went to far. There's a point where he acknowledged his faults, and for me, that's good enough. For some people, it seemed they want blood. I just want to know that the message has been heard and the admin wants to do better. And really, isn't that kind of the same for everyone, admin or not? -- Avanu (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at an article talk page

There are numerous personal attacks on me at the Sgt Pepper talk page. Other editors have tried to "hat" them but one or two users keep restoring them. It is my understanding that personal attacks can and should be removed from the talk page. Can you offer any advice in this regard, Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting civility enforcement is not my specialty. I've dealt with enough vested contributors to know how arbitrarily it can be enforced. Choose your friends wisely! Personal attacks are the cheapest way to debate, and it's best to let them roll off your back, ignore them and not reciprocate them. The name-callers will look all the more foolish and negative if you rise above it. Doc talk 05:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good advice, thanks Doc! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your expertise is required

Hello, Doc9871. I assume you are the WP expert in SRQ-related stuff. Could you take a look at 96.245.165.52 (talk · contribs) contribution and its possible relation to Dante8's SPI? Is it the same user? Is he/she doing it intentionally? Is it harmful enough to start an SPI? Thank you in advance. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 19:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I do not believe that SRQ is Dante8, but the IP you mention is certainly Dante8. They seem to be editing while logged out again, but I'm not 100% sure if it's technically considered socking. Dante8 isn't exactly an editor who likes to talk to others, so a note on their talk page reminding them to be careful about editing while logged out would likely get no response. Doc talk 19:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyhow, I tried to remind them both to log in. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)