User talk:Doc9871

• Please replace {{Wikipedia:WikiOgre/topicon}} with {{WikiOgre}}

bubble tea

DocOfSoc (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you again, I was in the dark.

I really appreciate your keeping me apprised of SRQ's case. I had no idea we had finally reached the appropriate recommendation. I can finally take a *Deep Breath*. My gratitude is unbounded! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check out the Bundy article

Hi a new editor just made a large edit to Ted Bundy. Something isn't right about the edit. Please take a look here. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is strange, but no way to tell it's her right now. The other two articles this person edited have to do with Welsh football - hardly an interest of SRQ that I know of. I'll keep my eyes on it, as I'm sure you will. Cheers! :> Doc9871 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick request

Your recent comments to User talk:Crohnie do not seem to be going anywhere productive, and it might be about time just to let it go. It has been a while now, so maybe this advice is redundant. I think that everyone else involved has already been asked to take a deep breath and calm down, so I am hoping that this little flare up from the drama bug can be quietly put to rest. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks, 2/0! Doc9871 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Doc9871. You have new messages at fuhghettaboutit's talk page.

Fair use rationale for File:Charlesmanson2009mug1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Charlesmanson2009mug1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a mug shot[1]. No one owns it, and I have no questions about that at all. Thanks for the template warning, though - please read this. If it's deleted, I will re-insert it with the appropriate rationale. Thank you... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. I notified you because I'm working my way through Category:Mug shots, it has nothing to do with WQA and I don't appreciate the insinuation. I am aware that arguments have been made that mug shots are public domain, but as they are not as a whole conclusive at least for now the image either needs evidence that it specifically is in the public domain or it needs a fair use rationale, not simply a claim of "Fair use asserted". Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So... instead of "dropping me a line" about the image rationale - you randomly template me and put it up for deletion. Nothing to do with the WQA? Really? You honestly think this image deserves deletion for the reason you are giving? Go for it - it will remain. Trust me on this. Nice try, though... Doc9871 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't randomly template you, I told you your file lacked a FUR in the way that it's supposed to be treated. If you want to scan my contributions you'll see that I worked my way through other 'C' mugshots yesterday and 'B' mugshots the day before. As to what I honestly think, I think you should follow the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, that's all. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of working my way through mugshots - you clearly know how to apply a FUR, it isn't so hard, is it? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So instead of pointing this out in the first place, you just nominate the image for deletion. It was hurting the article (and wiki) because it didn't have all the tiny details? I'm tired right now - but you've picked a really bad fight here. I'll see you tomorrow on this one (fresh and ready). Manson at age 74 in a prison mug shot is going to stay here, and I'll be able to explain it better later - we've got a week at least, right? Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're accusing me of picking a fight because I point out that your picture is in violation of policy, maybe you should work somewhere besides WQA? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it okay now? Take the deletion tag off please... Doc9871 (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

But you won't, I bet. Because it isn't about the image - it's about something else. See you in the funny pages... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, well I guess this was a waste of time. I don't think anything was done and the bot just archived it away. What a waste of time esp. since she is still at it. Thought you should know. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is she still socking? The thread may be bot-archived, but it's not resolved by any means. The SPI case has been hanging out there forever, and it must be resolved to remove it from the board. I'm starting to get pretty irritated with this whole thing as well... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Check your email please. I sent it to you for your collection. :) The spi has also been closed and archived I believe. At least it says it's completed. That being said, I didn't see anything change. Yes, I am as frustrated as you and everyone else about it. I just don't think they taking socking seriously enough. Instead of dealing with this, everyone got involved in an editor outing complaint even though the editor who complained about outing had his real name attached to his user page. Sometimes focus is needed at AN/i to take care of the important matters first I think would help. Oh well, what can be done? Maybe adding the new IP's socking recently would reactivate interest? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that it is her - the Rosemead connection is interesting, but the account goes back too far, and the majority of edits are to articles she wouldn't go to. I don't think she would have have bothered "sleeper" socking when she was active (too "proud" back then). I may be wrong, but I'm not convinced here. Keep looking - she probably still is at it. Her SPI isn't closed - it's just taking forever. Keep the e-mails coming, Crohnie, and I hope all is well! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

HI Doc #1! Just an FYI, a Verizon acct with TWO geo locations showed up on Ryan Seacrest article today , which I assiduously monitor. Could it be? I have a Bad feeling  :-( Will tell Crohnie too! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This could possibly be her (same geo signature and editing method) - already saw that. Since the lengthy SPI processing is so slow-going, I don't want to add it just yet. The history is always there, anyway. If you're referring to this (AT&T, not Verizon) or this (Verizon, but an uncharacteristic, old edit history and different domain): not provably SRQ, and I'm not confident either of those two are her. So many socks (IP's especially) out there: don't think it's her every time you see one, or you'll go mad. She'll be much more careful now, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. Keep looking and letting me know. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

She's BAAAACK! Brazen,bold and thinks WE are stupid! Going to my quiet place now BBL! AAARRRGGGHHH!! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC) [2]

This looks bad. Hmmm... Doc9871 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Go to Luke's talk page and give a polite poke too, please! :) Maybe we can poke enough people to generate some interest again. If not, I guess AN/i is the next stop which I don't want to do but if needed... --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not many admins (save for Luke) seem to want to touch this case: I have no idea why. We already did the AN/I, and nothing came of it whatsoever. It's been about a month now since the report was filed. Who really is SRQ? I'm starting to wonder if it isn't a "former admin" type - but I doubt it. For whatever reason, this editor is allowed to sock unabashedly, and nothing will be done about it... Doc9871 (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What we do is we link to the archive discussion and force another conversation until someone does something already. With this latest attacks she did on multiple editors maybe more attentions will be given to it this time around. The last time she just looked like she was trying to 'help' the articles. Now she is agressively attacking editors in good standing and not even trying to hide who she is, that should be a helpful difference to get someone to respond more rapidly to the situation. Think about it, they do nothing and this esculates out of control, who will they blame? I say lets get the ball moving now that we have proof she isn't here to be helpful. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if she's trying to "help" or "harm": she's a banned editor who is blatantly socking. She's not welcome on Wikipedia for a reason, and she was community-banned unanimously. It's very tiresome at this point - a ban is a ban, and socking to evade a ban is just that. Let the SPI case rot, I guess. To any admin watching this page: it's a very simple case (with lots of boring evidence). QUACK!!! Doc9871 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just updated the SPI here. I figured it can't hurt anything but maybe it will help?! Oh and I also went through some of the Sabra accounts edits and reverted them if no one else edited after her. I was surprised at how many I could revert to mark as a sock account of a banned user. Thoughts, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I fixed a couple of spelling errors, however. Good grief! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A song for you

De Wikipedia sock puppet*

De Wikipedia editors sing dis song, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

De Wikipedia sockpuppet cases are five miles long, Oh, doo-dah day!

I come down dah wid my diffs caved in, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

I go back home wid a pocket full of sin, Oh, doo-dah day!

Gwine to post all night!

Gwine to post all day!

I'll bet my money on de sockpuppet Skag,

Somebody bet on de bay.

De cellphone filly and de big black sock, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

Dey fly to Wikipedia Review and dey both cut across, Oh, doo-dah-day!

De blind sock sticken with a indefinite block, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

Can't touch bottom de Wikipedia wid a ten foot pole, Oh, doo-dah-day!

Chorus

Old Skag Queen come on to de track, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

De sockpuppet flung ober on her back, Oh, doo-dah-day!

Den fly along like a rail-road car, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

Runnin' a race wid a cellphone sock, Oh, doo-dah-day!

Chorus

See dem flyin' on de sockpuppet diffs, Doo-dah doo-dah!

Round de encylopedia, den repeat, Oh, doo-dah-day!

Doc won his case on de sockpuppet page, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

I keep my bets on admins with guts, Oh, doo-dah-day!

• Paraphrased from the original by Stephen Foster

Awesome! Finally. We all did it, and only because we knew exactly who it was. Wouldn't have filed this SPI otherwise. 1 for 1 - it's a start... Doc9871 (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said previously, what a bunch of idiots. You have no idea who this so-called "sock" really is, all you have is guesses and no proof. Do you have any clue how many Verizon Wireless customers edit Wikipedia? 100? 1000? More? (yes, definitely more!!!) Alas, so many Verizon Wireless IPs available, so little time.............LOL! <|8~P

SRQ: you're done here. I'll tag this IP at my leisure. You cannot hide your voice - it's why you were banned to begin with. "Guesses and no proof"? You should have allowed your ban to expire. Now it's "Whack-A-Skag", I guess... Doc9871 (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You think I'm SRQ, eh? Idiots, complete idiots. Yep, guesses and no proof. A "voice" can be replicated; without IP evidence, all you have is guesses and no proof. Even the CU said there was no real technical proof. Yes, catch me if you can (and you did not and cannot). LOL! <|8~P