User talk:Doc9871

Falling Barnstars!

		The Anachronistic Guitar Barnstar
		For getting Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix‎ through the gruelling FA process. I wonder what Hendrix would do with a Parker Fly? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The others did all the fine work: I only helped get it off the ground in an inadvertent way. It turned out remarkably; and it was a learning experience as well. It's a great article that I'm proud to have had a small part in. Cheers :) Doc talk 23:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My guess is that Hendrix would make a Parker Fly sing -- as he did with every other guitar he touched. And then he would go back to his trusty Stratocaster. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Gauntlet

You have an opinion on this user. You clearly expressed that. Decline his unblock if you feel that strongly. Perhaps engage him/her, talk to them. Ping me on my talk if you'd like to have them unblocked, and if you can make the case to me, I'll do so. You can decline unblocks as a non-admin, and I'm watching the process. I'll help you if things get out of hand. Feel free to hit me up for help. SQL^{Query me!} 07:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As it reads now, per WP:Blocking policy: "Any user may comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the request (either declining or unblocking)." No admin is likely to unlock the user, but only an admin can do it according to policy. Doc talk 07:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't so much as commented at the user's talk page. SQL^{Query me!} 07:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

He's a waste of time. No gauntlet for me: too many toes stepped on, and not worth the headache. I like being a NCO a lot better anyway. More freedom! Cheers :> Doc talk 07:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That is your decision to make. I tried to give you the opportunity to help yourself. SQL^{Query me!} 07:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it! Thanks, SQL! Doc talk 08:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For caring enough to take the time with fellow editors, even those that others have written off. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis! This means a lot coming from one of the most universally respected admins on the site. The only "enemies" I have here are, in no particular order: vandals, trolls, spammers, POV-pushers; and especially the sockers that commit all of the above sins. The "hopelessly incompetent" sort of editor I don't have contempt for, but also don't want here. We must be retaining the good editors when they are really here to act in good faith and improve the place. Thanks again! Doc talk 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited!

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

This page semi-protected for a week

Ask me or any other admin if you want it removed earlier. I was guessing this was the best solution and your preferred method to deal with the issue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I definitely was going to remove the stuff; I was waiting to see what he was going to do next, and then logged off for the night. His very last edit says it all, destroying his pathetic "little brother" excuse. I assume it's a "he" after reading this recent BBC article, which you must read if you haven't already. Cheers :) Doc talk 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

TLDR re block

Re this, and I think maybe you were on the TLDR talkpage? As noted there, TLDR was used as the rationale for a two-day block which totally blocked me from my own talkpage and email....forTLDR??Skookum1 (talk)

I've never edited the TLDR talkpage.[1] I don't know how TLDR in itself is a justification for a block, quite honestly. It could be stretched into disruptive editing, I guess.

I should also reiterate that while I certainly don't want to see you site banned, I do clearly see why others are complaining about you. I don't think they are just simply wrong across the board, or that it's all on them with only you being blameless. So, while I will continue to oppose a site ban on you, I stress that you need to look more carefully and introspectively at why any editor would really want you banned in the first place. Doc talk 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistaken ID, there's another "doc" user there. As for imposing a block on me like was done last week on TLDR grounds alone, that's abuse and contrary to what that essay is about. Blocking me for any period of time will suspend very constructive activities and alienate me from Wikipedia as a place more obsessed with its own protocols than actually serious about writing a proper encyclopedia. This is a political campaign IMO, as I have said on that ANI re its partisan and one-sided nature, and is disruptive and meant to obstruct and halt my activities overcoming the abuse of the NCL guideline that the core group there, which includes Usyvdi, who is not guiltless in the AGF/NPA department herself, and is entirely disruptive and a WP:CFWT. The proper thing from here is to WP:DISENGAGE but instead U. keeps on carping and carping about me, even saying my criticisms of what are going on are NPA and "punishable by death", more or less.Skookum1 (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re this "you need to look more carefully and introspectively at why any editor would really want you banned in the first place." I already know that in U's and Kwami's and JorisV's case - I'm in their way and my overturning of their misapplication of WP:NCL (which badly needs to be brought into line with TITLE/Precision/Conciseness and NCET and more) has their collective nose out of joint; failing to block me at RMs the ANI was launched, IMO, simply to get rid of me. As for "why any [other] editor [than them] want [me] banned", TLDR is the usual rant/whine but it's not even supposed to be applied re discussions of any kind, though BHG, Fayenatic, Bushranger and others have done so.....including derailing CfDs and RMs by harrassing me over it. Others in that ANI such as Dicklyon and Agne have been vociferous opponents in the past, now coming forward to say "yes, burn him, he's a witch". Other editors such as Carrite and CambridgeBayWeather do not want me banned and a are critical of those who do. That that one comment about mental problems was allowed to stand is yet another NPA against me of the worst kind; personality attack and imputations of mental illness (which Kwami has also done).Skookum1 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)1|talk]])

The thing with TLDR is that other users not only don't want to read "walls of text", their attention span is instantly turned off by seeing one. It's best to keep it short and concise. The simpler, the better. Disengaging on both sides is the surest way to avoid conflict. The first to engage after that can be seen as the "aggressor". I cannot get into looking at the history between you and your detractors. They are looking for sanctions, and all I can do is point out how sanctioning usually goes. Doc talk 06:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

yeah I know full well how a lynch mob works, and a kangaroo court too (I was explaining those terms to my Russian ESL client just two days ago). Montanabw had Uyvsdi disengage following a contretemps re the use of category redirects......which I did, and have avoided any topics in her topic area; three weeks later she very aggressively waded into BC categories by picking a very controversial one to re-create contrary to consensus and then stuck her finger in her cheek saying "I want to see what other editors have to say"; if I'd known that freelance re-creating of CFD'd category titles was in the offing, I would have created Category:Skwxwu7mesh myself instead of being so foolish as to not realize that procedure/consensus is not about facts, but based on biases and ungrounded opinions; Category:Squamish should be the category for the town/district of Squamish, as with Category:Nanaimo, Category:Lillooet, and others of that kind; she knows nothing about BC nor even about t he Skwxwu7mesh people. IMO that action of hers was very much the actions of an aggressor; who wanted "other editors" as ignorant of the facts as she is to 'have their way'. BHG, by the way, closed one of the Squamish discussions on the basis of TLDR...taht's a violation of guidelines but as I've learned, admins never eat their own...and will usually find someone else to eat instead.Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed it on the ANI, I'll quote this bit of Mark Twain I found this morning, during my ESL lesson:

• <wikiquote>In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.</wikiquote>

'Nuff said.Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I won't even begin to look at any content disputes between you and others. That's something you all are going to have to work out amongst yourselves, maybe through WP:DR. Consider me a "referee" here. I don't care who wins, just that the game is played by the rules. Good luck, and Cheers :) Doc talk 07:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the game obviously hasn't been being played by the rules, not at RMs and CfDs, and not at the ANI. Serious reform is needed so that such processes cannot be abused for personal vendettas, which is how I would sum up all of what has being going on. And people unqualified to vote on content issues (which includes TITLE considerations) should simply not be voting, or their votes discounted, especially when unsubstantiated or misquoting/abusing guidelines.....and people not qualified in the topic area should not be the ones closing such discussions, unless they are prepared to read the evidence and are not closing on reasons of personal bias against the proponent, which is clearly what BHG did in the cases mentioned; Bella Bella and Fort Fraser and others similarly "unclosed" will be revisited by WPCANADA, where I've been told I should have avoided RMs and just asked a Canadian admin to move them.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about the specifics of the dispute here. And I am not interested in making great reforms to the system. All systems are inherently flawed and need constant adjustment. I generally know how things work here, operate within the environment provided for us, and deal with others working in the same system the best that I can. I can agree with users that I respect about one thing, and then completely oppose them on something else. That includes both The Bushranger and BHG.

There are many hackneyed clichés I could cite as advice for your current situation. "Rise above it." "Take the high road." "Be the better man." "Kill 'em with kindness." "Turn the other cheek." "Forgive your enemies." And, perhaps most importantly: "Silence is golden". Cheers :) Doc talk 08:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to, but keep on seeing unfair and AGF comments that need responding to....and keep on being confronted by oppositionist votes and closes on procedures I launch. If I'm banned, others have indicated to me they will revisit the items in question, but I've learned better than to bother with procedure where uninformed and hostile participants are free to screw around with the procedure as they please. As CambridgeBayWeather has said many times about attempts to shut down discussions while demanding discussions they never held in the first place and now are stonewalling such discussions being groundless as the issues addressed by the proposal are already in the guidelines; though not in the one whose defenders are attacking me over overriding as inadequate and, frankly, incomptently and dishonestly written. Biased and contra-guideline actions by admins is not going to to go away; but it sure drives people away....Skookum1 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Confidential

Just so you know, I appreciate your encouragement for another editor to close that ANI. (I have no desire to keep open or have stay open.) It seems this is a lot of fun for some people, however, and must explain it. (The abuse-train must continue chugging, else, apparently, it will hurt the economy [popcorn sales].) As long as it stays open I'm subject to continued mud-slinging, and, that ain't right, but I guess you & I are the only ones who think so. Great place. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm an "old salt" when it comes to commenting at AN/I. It's a crazy courthouse, and I only jump in when I feel like it. It's not really such a bad place unless you get dragged there by someone. Just keep doing the positive things you do and don't worry about the thread anymore. Cheers :) Doc talk 06:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be good admin material. (Been around awhile, don't take yourself too seriously, flexible, intelligent, thoughtful, with good view for the overall of the [health and objectives of the ] encyclopeia [like User:NE Ent]. [Unlike crass, asshole-ish, POV-oriented, destructive admins like User:The Bushranger ... just for an abstract compare.] You even have a Dennis-Brown barnstar! [I forgive you for that, though.]) Anyway, I think you'd make a good admin. Even though you are a prick sometimes (which I haven't experienced personally). So what gives? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)