User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/April

Random compliment

Hi. Well said, that. I haven't looked at the conversation that inspired it, but I'm doing a quick morning scan through ANI and it caught my eye. Diplomatic but no-nonsense. Good job; hope it's well received. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Seeing the reply there I'm not sure it hit home :( --Errant ^(chat!) 12:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs HashKeeper International Association for Identification Tyler Connolly System software Real evidence The Riftwar Saga DECAF Honoured Enemy MetaSAN Rise of a Merchant Prince VGA box MV Patriot The Empire of Great Kesh Murder in LaMut Jimmy the Hand (novel) Jaswal Affiliate tracking software Serial computer Link exchange

Cleanup Sharon Lopatka Z3 (computer) State vs Ari David Levie Merge Multi-level marketing Harassment by computer Ebook scene Add Sources Forensic corporate collections 2000 in piracy MSDC Wikify James Plaintain Scindia family Sociological imagination Expand Monster of Florence Gul Rahman 1719 in piracy

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian page and your ocmments...

Ronn Torossian what is the source for example for -- "works closely" with Christian supporters of Israel, including the Christians United For Israel led by TV evangelist John Hagee who he also represents. WHAT IS THE SOURCE FOR WORKS CLOSELY ? Rabbi Morris Allen spoke about 5wpr, not Torossian - This quotation, along with the sentence after is about 5WPR, not about him. Nothing in either of the references implies that he was responsible for the actions, that he knew of or approved of them. Why would they be here ? Am responding to and appreciate your comment. greenbay1313 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, unfortunately I haven't the time to look in depth at the specific issues you raised. My area of "expertise" in this case is in WP:BLP checks, and from my perspective there is no obvious or gregarious libel in the article. I suggest you raise those points in a polite and restrained manner once at a time on the article talk page. If you run into any problems I will try to help, but as I said this is a topic area I tend to avoid. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Forensics

greenbay1313 is now a blocked sock of a community banned user, so please allow me to divert you onto something else :)

A brand new user turned up on my talk page asking for help and advice with their first ever article, which happens to be about forensics. The particular type of forensics involved is not your expertise at all (as I understand it), but I thought you might be able to make some suggestions about the type of sources they should be looking for, and places they should look for them. (Their choices of sources are proving problematic right from the start, with one that's on the Wikipedia blacklist, and another that seems to be a fringe-theory blogspot mainly focused on UFOs!) Many thanks for any help or hints you can give. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Brill :) you're right, not my area but happy to chip in if I can shoots over to your talk.... --Errant ^(chat!) 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at MauchoEagle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quick request, could you make me a confirmed user. I have a photo to upload but when I went to Wikipedia:Upload it said I couldn't. I read the policies and it said you need autoconfirmed access which I dont so I found out from the permission request page that confirmed id the next best thing. mauchoeagle 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, could you take a look at the Colin Hatch Afd result. I personally believe its not a clear cut Delete case. Many of the comments provided were actually in favour of Keep. I believe a No Consensus result would have been much more appropriate. But I let someone more neutral decide.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Heya, I'll have a look today for you. Have you considered WP:DRV? Listing it there might allow you to make a new argument for un-deletion. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have done so now. Check it out. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson

re: the sockpuppet investigation of user SuperblySpiffingPerson - user:Pikeman327 looks like the next as evidenced by his love of the "minor edit" option [1]. noclador (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

They haven't done anything drastic yet. I'd go with... let it slide for a moment and keep an eye out. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles.
Message added 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey

Hi Tom, I don't recall running into you back when I was a regular here (08-09) but on catching up on things to get back up to speed I've noticed you at several places. I admit my memory isn't what it used to be, and if we had interacted back then, then I apologize for forgetting. Couldn't have been too bad if I forgot huh? Anyway, I just wanted to say I've read through some stuff that you've posted (more board and talk page stuff than article building), and I am truly impressed. Your patience, understanding, and willingness to work with people just amaze the living daylights outta me. That's really all I wanted to say, "Hello, nice to meet you - I like your style" kinda thing. Hope to work with you on something soon.

Cheers and Best, — Ched :  ?  13:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Heya. Thanks for the kind words, you put a smile on my face :) I've only properly been around since the middle of last year (ye gads, it's nearly a year!) and before that I was briefly an editor in 06 (it's horribly embarrassing to come across stuff I wrote back then... slightly less patient ;)). I really want to get back to article building... since Feb (basically since RFA) I've not seemed to find enough time to get my teeth into an article :( Fingers crossed for this month. Good to see you back, even if I never saw you leave! --Errant ^(chat!) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation (REVIVED)

Hi Errant. I contacted you last month about closing two RfCs. You closed one and relisted the other. The second, Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation (REVIVED), is now ready for closure, I think, since no one has participated in it for three weeks. Would you close it and implement any consensual changes? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks --Errant ^(chat!) 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I've posted a request at WP:AN#Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities for an admin to close Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities, but no one has stepped forward to do so even though the consensus is clear. Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:List of YouTube personalities may need to be updated after that discussion is closed. If you have no time or don't feel like closing the debate, I understand. I've been pestering you a lot to close discussions that other admins are too lazy to do. ;) Cunard (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no it's fine, someone has to get it done. I'll try and do it at lunch :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, when I ask a specific admin on their talk page to close a discussion, I usually have minimal or no involvement in the debate. For List of YouTube personalities, I closed the previous RfC and started the current RfC after a request at User talk:SoWhy/Archive 22#Underwood. I have not advocated a particular position as I have no strong opinion about the matter. If I had actively participated in the RfC, I would have left the thread at AN (and posted periodic timestamp updates to prevent archiving) and would not have contacted you. This is because the close could be seen as tainted if a participant actively sought out a specific admin to close it. And that wouldn't be good after a month of discussion and consensus building. :) Best, Cunard (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorted that one out for you :) it was pretty conclusive really, don't worry about looking involved, you've dealt with it well. Thanks for taking the time to prompt me about these and as always if you spot something else that needs closing feel free to ping me about it. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comment and for closing the discussion. There is another discussion which has been open for a while: WP:ANI#Proposed restrictions. It's been archived once by the bot but then restored to ANI. I asked Courcelles (talk · contribs) to close it at User talk:Courcelles#WP:ANI#Proposed restrictions, but he has now participated in the discussion and cannot close it. Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) asked EdJohnston (talk · contribs) to close it, but Ed has not replied to his request even though he has edited. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:List of YouTube personalities needs to be updated after the closure of the RfC. Because the page is protected, I cannot edit it. My proposed changes are here. If you agree, feel free to revise if necessary and make the changes to the editnotice. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Done both :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the closures! I am especially impressed by your comment here. Clear and effective. Once again, your work is much appreciated. :) Cunard (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Zuggernaut's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Administrator culture discussion

Rather than prolong the thread at AN, I thought I'd run this past you here where you can ignore it or not, and where it won't bother anyone else.

I have absolutely no interest in the specific case being discussed by Hpvpp, nor do I think that he/she has a clear idea of what needs to be said and how. But I am absolutely convinced that there needs to be some form of dialogue about an administrator 'culture'. I believe there has been a noticeable shift in the way sysops conducted themselves prior to about 2008, and the way administrators exercise their authority today.

I don't have any specific groups of admins in mind, nor do I want to narrow the dialogue by targeting individuals, but how do you hold a discussion in the abstract without specific examples? And if you use specific examples, how do you prevent that from becoming a war?

By looking at broad trends, I guess, these will be questioned as trends for lack of specific examples, right? But let me tell you that I could give such examples for at leas two features of undesirable administrator culture: longer-term administrators are observed by their more junior colleagues, who emulate their actions and are quick to agree with their seniors without necessarily making independent assessments of the issues at hand; and some administrators routinely pick on only one aspect of a question, challenge or request, to the exclusion of all other aspects, and of context or intention. That's either so careless the people involved shouldn't be administrators, or so tyrannical that they deserve to be called 'Wikistapo'.

A disturbingly common attitude displayed by adminsitrators I have observed since returning to regular edits after a longish absence has been one of presumptive impatience and disrespect, particularly for 'newbies' as adjudged by number of edits or 'mistakes'. It is an attitude captured precisely by iridescent's comment 'virtually no edits to en-wiki', as if that somehow invalidates someone's humanity or potential for worthwhile ideas.

It is also true that I have some personally galling experiences with administrators who have struck me as blithely dismissive of what I've had to say, sometimes to the point where I believed they had deliberately and vexatiously misconstrued what I had written rather than addressing my concerns. Underlying that attitude, I thought, was either a sense of being overwhelmed by a 'them-us' perspective, or an astonishing, swaggering arrogance about the ability to ignore rationality when it suits to achieve some kind of ego gratification, and to then use administrator powers to censure and/or censor uncomfortable counter-comments.

That said, I have also been extremely fortunate that in a couple of circumstances where I refused to back away from threats by administrators suggesting my 'privileges' would be curtailed if I persisted, some other administrator stepped in to cool things down and communicate with me constructively. Much the way you did at AN, even if no real tensions or threats existed there.

Nevertheless, before you joined the discussion, I was acutely aware that I was running a risk just by daring to criticize. That I should have such a consideration in mind is not healthy. Sure, frivolous and spiteful challenges to administrator decisions are bullshit time-wasters, and we all rely on admins to keep some order in the chaos. I'd suggest that a search of even just the last two weeks of my activities would reveal that I have weighed into a couple of heated debates to defend administrators, but always because I thought they were rational and reasonable, not because they were administrators.

I intend to to spend some more time thinking about this, because I think it is a real problem for Wikipedia if there's a them-us divide, and if some administrator accountability isn't seen to exist much more prominently than it is seen right now.

If you were me, would you risk considerable animosity and possible boomerang retribution (by the book or contrived, it makes no difference) for an uncertain outcome by championing a debate that relied solely on a capacity for self-criticism by administrators?

I would be most interested in your feedback. Regards - Peter S Strempel | Talk 15:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I need to take time to consider your comments & write a decent reply :) so bear with me (just in case you see me wandering round doing other editing w/o responding) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I was going to write a long response to this. But actually that is probably not very useful. So here is a shorter treatise...

but how do you hold a discussion in the abstract without specific examples? And if you use specific examples, how do you prevent that from becoming a war?; this is an inherent problem. And at some point it really has to deal in specifics examples. On the other hand it should be possible to discuss problems that exist in genrality - but be specific about what they are. So, for example, rather than say "admins are abusive", explain it like... "there is a problem where, often, admins are no approachable or a rude to new editors". Once the problem is elucidated then it is possible to work on specific examples (sensitively).

The problems you mention are not, IMO, limited to admins (or a product of being an admin). Editors who have been around the block come to recognise certain types of editors, their willingness to engage with newbies who are stressful or argumentative or troublesome becomes limited. In a way that is understandable, because it just wastes time. On the other hand it means a large swathe of new editors are dismissed outright, when some of them may turn out OK with a little TLC. Now that is a problem I would agree with; tackling it, well, that's another matter!

I don't know your specific history, so I won't comment on that. But quite often admins make rash judgements or end up in disputes with editors simply because of communication FUBAR's or other simple mistakes. That's not really about being an admin (though one would hope that a good admin could avoid such situations), hell I've ended up in situations like that myself. It is more about human error. Someone coming fresh to such a discussion can usually dis-entangle things and point out that really there is nothing worth arguing over.

longer-term administrators are observed by their more junior colleagues, who emulate their actions and are quick to agree with their seniors without necessarily making independent assessments of the issues at hand; this can sometimes present a problem. Again mostly because we have cliques of editors with similar viewpoints and close friendships. I know I have a list of admins and editors I intensely respect (random examples... DGG, Sir Fozzie, Moonriddengirl are somewhere at the top of that list) and will learn from. Ultimately it is a problem that isn't really fixable except by addressing the underlying problem.

I think you should consider demonstrating a problem exists. I'd do it in a non-confrontational way, particularly as most of the people making mistakes or poor judgements won't be doing it out of malice (AGF etc etc.). Show the problem, present a solution. It could work. You might get backlash, but as long as you are not nasty I don't see why.

As I commented on my RFA, self-criticism is a bitch, so it is going to be an explosive topic. If you can handle it, and can show there is a problem. Sounds like a good thing to attempt. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I've been reading your words repeatedly for some hours. I need some time to absorb and understand. I do appreciate the time you took to try and understand. Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 20:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, as you helped me alot with the Schenecker double homicide article I just want to inform you that I have put the article up as a GA-article nominee.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool :) ping me when it gets reviewed, I'll try to have a look see & help out --Errant ^(chat!) 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Check out AFD for Murder of Eve Carson.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

MoMK

Can you please, I know your are so busy and I would really appreciate if it is in anyway possible, that you stay on the page. It is just like a huge war zone it seems. Nothing is really getting handled as its a constant battle. This was the reason I asked SuperMario to help me to start a new section. I hoped with possibly reading the things that were at the top, everyone would take a deep breathe and think. I do not think it worked as it turned into a total feud under it until you showed up. I am sorry if I am out of line to ask of such, but this really needs people clearly overseeing. Thank you kindly for your time. ( Please note if you reply, can you please to my page? This way I can see it and know how to get back here to you.)--Truth Mom (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification bot

I'm not sure if you removed your comment because you're not interested in creating a notification bot or because you've discovered Commons' processes for bots. The relevant page would be at Commons:Bots, though, just in case. Adrignola (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You've got me on the removed comment bit :S which one? Anyway; thanks for the link, I'll take a good look at it. Other than that, is there anything else pertinent I need to know about commons bots? It looks much like WP bots process from what I can see. My schedule is like wildfire for the next week or so but I might be able to cram some coding in over the weekend :) also, I haven't forgotten about my Wikibook - just got to get the material sorted for the next stage :D --Errant ^(chat!) 21:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see it was an addition and I confused the "r" for revert/removal when it was "reply". I can get confused on a page with so much activity. Thanks for looking into the bot thing; I don't think there's anything else. The bot would mostly be monitoring logs, so it will be more of an issue of the various projects' policies toward bots rather than Commons'. Adrignola (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Truth Mom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Truth Mom (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not need you to tell me what to do twice.Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:CodyJoeBibby

Being honest, I'm fast losing patience with CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs), who has been persistent in his refusals to assume good faith right from his first edit at Wikipedia less than two weeks ago and now berates me for offering an opinion at WP:RSN on the subject of the unresolved Oggi saga. His "contributions" to the project so far seem to amount to nothing more than personal attacks, false accusations and bitter innuendo. I also resent his repeated attempts at the talk page to try to "catch me out" and "land me in trouble" for the revert of the floor plan that I made almost one week ago - that I've stated that I'm now not averse to the image being put back into the article seems to have missed him. After warning him for two egregious personal attacks made last night (one of which was left here, directed at you), I've now "officially" been "banned" from posting at his user talk page for perceived "threats", but this continued pattern of abuse and disruption really is pushing the limit. SuperMarioMan 12:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am, for the most part, ignoring cody. Perhaps it is best for you to do the same. He has a POV on this matter, which isn't always a problem (there are other editors with strong POV's on the talk page who are at least being constructive), but is letting the frustration get to him. That happens. By not responding it is possible he will calm down and start to approach the process constructively again. I have a policy of not responding to people who make snide remarks at me, sticks and stones & all that (in fact, I'm quite happy for them to throw it at me, better that than someone else who might be upset/hurt).

It's not an unrecoverable situation.

From a practical perspective all we can really do for the moment is limit the more extreme content being pushed into the article. As it stands it is a mess (a travesty?) full of pro-guilt and pro-innocence stuff, sourced to tabloids and pointy bloggers. Some day in a few years the furore will have died down and someone sensible will collect some NPOV sources and write some good coverage. Till then we just have to fight off the tabloid.

That might just be my cynical view, of course ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that SuperMarioMan and yourself see Cody as having a POV on the matter and that is understandable. I believe that SuperMarioMan has a POV as well. I would like to hear an honest answer as to why SuperMarioMan removed the floor plan in the first place. I am asking on your page because I am hopeful that you will see that I am simply trying to get an answer. I am not attacking SuperMarioMan, I would simply like an answer. He made a bold revert on an image that he doesn't have a strong opinion on. Is this not odd? This action led to days of argument. Why? Last time I tried to reason with him, he reported me. These bold reverts could be done to many details of this article. Why not remove all disputed content until consensus can be reached?

I agree with you that this article is a mess. Unfortunately it threatens to influence an ongoing trial. Lifetime is currently being sued for misrepresenting this case in a movie. I bring this up only to show that there are legitimate concerns that public opinion can affect the outcome of the trial. What course of action would need to be taken to request that this article be taken offline? BruceFisher (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it threatens to influence an ongoing trial; no it doesn't. If a trial is influenced by a Wikipedia article then the legal system there is so resolutely broken it is not even worth bothering. This is the only piece of FUD that really pisses me off about Wikipedia. Anyway, rant over. The image was removed, really the best approach is to just deal with it. Nothing is served by demanding the why's and wherefores. In fact, it is disruptive to do so. Sure, SuperMarioMan might have been wrong to remove it (I'm not so sure, not to belittle the efforts of others but the image is fairly amateurish) but the best approach is to forget about the wrongs of others, gain strong consensus and move on. Little is served by retrospective. And certainly there is little weight to the argument "image was removed without consensus, so it should be added back". This is the core idea behind "the wrong version", for better or for worse the image ended up not being there. So now discuss it (and I think this discussion is relevant and worthwhile).

These processes take time. ON a contentious article they can often take a very long time, this is not a problem, there is no time limit. Those rushing to get content into the article should pause to think "why, what is so important it must be done NOW". A lot can be achieved by stopping and considering your approach.

Many people on that page appear to have views on innocence and guilt. That's.... understandable. But ideally we should have no views on that, and deal with material simply in light of Wiki policy. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand these things take time. Unfortunately the article in question has been misrepresenting the facts about this case for far too long. I don't expect the article to read as I would like it to. That would be a ridiculous position. I do think the article should be neutral and give the basic facts of the case. Right now it clearly does not.

We have discussed the floor plan image. The majority think it should remain. This is not a major part of the article. We all know that. It is the principle of the action that matters. Every little detail is manipulated by a small group that throws around their Wikipedia strength. Those who disagree are supposed to let every one of these actions go. "Just let it go" "Just let it go" only works when both sides are reasonable.

Time is a problem when incorrect information is allowed to stand. Remove all disputed content and then take as long as you like to figure it out. That policy is great. Why isn't it being enforced? BruceFisher (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant, I know that this must be tiring, but would it be possible for you to ask Bruce, just one more time, at his talk page, to drop edits such as this one, this one and this one? I'm not sure what point he is attempting to prove, but I'm fed up with all of this insinuation, refusal to take a hint and attempts to make me feel much guilt about an action that I performed a week ago. After his recent personal attacks on me, I requested that Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) advise Bruce about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable user conduct, but his performance today seems to indicate that he has learnt nothing at all from this lesson and will simply insist on continuing these disruptive and pointless enquiries until the almost inevitable block is finally imposed. Given Salvio's explicit warning about possible further WP:ANI reports, I find all of this obstinacy really quite amazing. Never in all the time that I have contributed to Wikipedia have I endured so many tedious debates with one single user. SuperMarioMan 20:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello ErrantX, Thanks for your action on the article about Cheek Kissing. What I'm wondering is if this means that the change I've made was not found constructive. I strongly believe the recent change I'm trying to make is more credible than the previous version with the reasons explained on article's discussion page. Thanks! 76.89.183.205 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the page like that is not be advocating the current content (see m:The Wrong Version for an explanation of this). When a edit war takes place on an article admins will protect the page for a short while, no matter which form it is in at the time of protection. The intention is not to freeze the article content per se, but instead to stop the process of edit warring. Now you have the time to discuss the proposed text on the talk page and reach consensus on its inclusion.

I can't really comment on the actual issue because it is not me area of expertise --Errant ^(chat!) 13:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to ask what happens if the other user doesn't join the discussion during this protection period but keep reverting the changes. In this case, it would leave me one handed guilty and that we couldn't find a common solution. Thanks for your time. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If they refuse to take part in the discussion and simply remove the content again, don't revert it yourself. Ask for some further opinion; WP:3O can be useful, as is WP:RFC - in fact you might want to do the former right now to get an independent opinion. If you think consensus is either against the other editor, or the dicussion is still not resolved, but they are editing in their preferred content then bring it back to the community noticeboards (or indeed feel free to drop me a note) and they can be given a "break" to get the message across :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But gain consensus for your actions... with sources would be good - I see a distinct lack of them so far! I suggest finding a source that indicates cheek kissing customs in Turkey are European in origin --Errant ^(chat!) 14:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant, the categorization was not made about where the customs came from. It was made depending on where each country is located. What you said is hard to describe as it would be even more difficult to explain what is accepted European origin and what is not. It's even a debate that European countries still argue and cannot solve. If the country is in Europe, then the customs of the country contribute to the European culture as a part of it. There is no single "European culture" or "origin" we can define. I wanted to contribute Wikipedia with the sole aim of improving it. I don't think there are people who are neutrally knowledgeable about the topic and can understand what I'm saying here. You can keep the page as whatever you want. I'm done. Thank you. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the whole "split this up by geographical" region because it does end up falling afoul of nationalism and causes no end of arguments. In this case the topic is related to culture, I have no real knowledge of the topic itself but I could readily imaging that the cultures of large regions are recognizable or at least discussed in sources. And, so, it might be possible to categorize cultural approaches to cheek kissing based on those larger geographical areas. If it can't... then division by geographical area might not be the best option, perhaps some other format is available. But, as always, sources are key. If there is a source highlighting the European influence on the culture of cheek kissing in Turkey, that is pretty conclusive :) Otherwise the argument is less hard to accept. Same applies for Middle Eastern influence. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your efforts :)

File:Pie.jpeg

Truth Mom (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Truth Mom (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you remove my post from the talk page. I was putting a reminder up, but didn't know you were closing it. Also above on this page where i gave you the cookie, there is a comment by someone else, I didn't put that there. Thank you kindly --Truth Mom (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheek kissing

You might want to have a longer protection period than one day. The edit-warring IP is focused on a specific agenda (Turkey being "in Europe" rather than in the Middle East) and doesn't appear likely to back off from it anytime soon. And given the seemingly harmless nature of this article, it's hard to imagine why it would be edit-warred over but there it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

24 hours might be enough for them to back off of that article. But point taken; I'll check back on the article tomorrow when protection expires and see the outcome (and maybe extend things). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Good enough. I proposed to the IP that he create a separate section called "Eurasia". (Russia could fit in there too.) He then made it crystal clear what his agenda is, which is to label Turkey as being primarily European. Another solution could be to take away the references to continents altogether, or as much as possible, and simply list the countries alphabetically. If he objects to that too, then it will be clear that he's using the article as a battleground for his POV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you even think I might have an "agenda" about such a topic. I honestly don't care what's written there. What concerns me is the lack of facts that the article has. If the country is European, then saying it is European cannot be an agenda or something. It is not something forbidden and saying this loud doesn't make one bad or the other good. I would support the latter argument, which is deleting the name of the continents and list the countries in an alphabetic order. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't care what the article says, then why were you edit-warring over what it said? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few cosmetic changes to the article. No new content, just some retitling and moving some things around. We'll see if it flies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Baseball_Bugs,

I definitely think the new version looks better than the old one. However, map-wise, I would suggest the order of the countries to be in alphabetical order. It would make it easier to navigate. Although the current version is an improvement to the old one, it is not completely precise in terms of map wise ordering. The other thing is that the current source used is not about cheek kissing. The source doesn't say anything about it. Moreover, the current article has personal thoughts such as "Some men hit each others head on the side instead of cheek kissing, possibly as an attempt to masculinize the action". There is no source to this argument either. The current article also says "for greeting without sexual connotations". The article already defines cheek kissing without sexual connotations. I'm from France and cheek kissing in France is without sexual connotation too. I believe we don't have to write this for each country. Please consider the following change I made as it is more clear and has a reliable source which exactly defines Cheek Kissing in Turkey and verifies what's written on Wikipedia: Cheek kissing in Turkey is also widely accepted in greetings. If meeting for the first time, a handshake will suffice for both genders. It is accepted normal for women-women or men-men to kiss each other on the cheek if they are close friends or they are from similar social circles. A man and a woman could cheek kiss each other if they are good friends or depending on the circle, the setting, and the location like in big cities. Thank you for your concern. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which post to respond to, so I'll start here. Obviously, better sourcing would be better. :) The reason I laid out the countries geographically is that customs kind of flow regionally. I realize it's not totally in that order. It's still a work-in-progress, and I also didn't want to go too far with it in case it gets shot down (which it hasn't yet). I fear that pure alphabetizing would undermine the concept. But I'm not married to it. :) I suppose you might keep the "Latin America" designation, as those are all Spanish-culture customs. I could likewise through France and Spain (and Italy) into something one could call "Latin Europe", but that might be met with some opposition. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Council

You mean counsel I think William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Might do ;) Either that I consider him a duly elected body... Thanks :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

MoMK

I just wanted to let you know that despite my calling you out a bit on the talk page today, I really appreciate your continued efforts there. You seem to have gained the respect of the "there is no controversy" and the "teach the controversy" crowds, and that is eminently useful as we try and approach the article in the spirit of compromise under WP policies.LedRush (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's ok, I was having a dodgy day all round :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

MoMK

I assume you are aware of this list of MoMK single-purpose accounts?. I can hardly see what is disruptive about listing some more on the talkpage. It's not as if they're desperately pretending to be any different from the last lot. 86.166.162.54 (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've told you how to approach this properly. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi ErrantX/Archive/2011/April. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RFA reform, eh? Is there any intention to rid the RFA process of the popularity-contest aspect? I find it interesting that in my RFA, about a third of the "oppose" voters have since either been indef'd or have left wikipedia. (And in case you're wondering... you couldn't pay me enough to try another run.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the aim :) Go ahead and throw your 2p into the ring, all contribution is welcome! --Errant ^(chat!) 15:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose moving your page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clerks to Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Clerks and make a schortcut WP:RFA2011/Clerks, to make it part of the suite of discussions. How do feel about it? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, feel free. I think if it passes we could move it back, but for now it makes plenty of sense there. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility!

As usual you do not have the remotest idea what you are talking about! Want to see some invivility go and take a look at Malleus's page yesterday. Funny none of you seemed to spot it, perhaps you all have taken Malleus' page off the civility watchlist? Giacomo Returned 21:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't watch every page, hence the need for places like AN/I. I'm glad you feel a "little sorry for him" (ahem ;)), but I am not sure he deserves it. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I wondered who that was :-) yes, I am an untapped source of human kindness. It's funny what can be missed on Malleus's page isn't it and what can at other time be so quickly spotted. Giacomo Returned 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Given his return to editing will apparently be "once some sort of justice is given", assuming that means to you, standard form suggests hell might freeze over first. ;) I guess you ostensibly got the block you asked for, even if it is of the "de facto" form --Errant ^(chat!) 22:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well we shall see. He appears to be restored to us already. I just find it very odd that some of us can be harpooned and electrocuted for piffling incivility to an admin and other can make homophobic and racist taunts and you civility people look the other way. Anyway, I think we have discussed all of this before and nothing appears to have changed. Giacomo Returned 22:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality and race of course are the subjects to be most avoided on wikipedia, otherwise bear the consequences of people such as your self who are very sensitive of such issues going to an extreme and making the worst possible situation possible out of something that was said. A lot of its comes down to tone, a while no homosexual discussion is really advisable on wikipedia it turns out that the tone towards myself by the others was clearly more malicious that what I dished out to others and a direct natural human response on percieved personal attacks on myself. I'm not excusing what I said or did, but I think you are taking it far too literally rather than actually seeing I was wondering why you stick so hard with each other at all costs rather than actually calling you gay. Never mind, hell better be freezing when I return, after which I'll be playing an Eagles song, and no the Eagles is not a gay jargon reference..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:DROP is probably the best advice right now. Giano hit back and you and baited you, it's his way, what exactly is supposed to be done about it? As I mentioned elsewhere... it was a playground taunt, born out of anger, and totally inappropriate. Own up. Get over it. Forget the article. Move on. *shrug* Nothing excuses what you said to Pedro, reflect on that. And the advice he gave you. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I hate to see genuinely good edits reverted and an effort to improve our GA count.. If you really look exactly what was reverted you'll see why I refuse to DROP. All I can say is that this ordeal has been unnecessary, "Wasted Time". "I Can't Tell You Why" but it was something of a "Last Resort". All can say is that "Love Will Keep Us Alive" and we'd better Get Over It and start to "Take It Easy". (Hell Freezes Over!) Regards..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• As Blofeld is still posting on this matter in relevant places: I have commented on the matter here [2]. I trust that Arbs and Admins will ensure that this is the end of the matter. I don't intend to be insulted or trolled by this person again. I hope it will not be necessary for me to have to comment further. I will try to leave it to the Admins and Arbs as I always being told to do. Giacomo Returned 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

insulted trolled? you just accused Blofeld of calling people homosexuals and illiterate Spainards on the winter palace talk page!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How very observant of you. Indeed, he calls people homosexuals, illiterate Spaniards and nominates pages by Admins (who don't agree with him) for deletion put of pure spite. I suggest you wise up. Giacomo Returned 12:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

don't make up filthy lies about editors here, Blofeld would never do such a thing he is a friendly user--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the item he initiated on WP:ANI? He did, in fact, say those things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

yes I did, he did make a bum chum remark but, he didn't mean it has homophobic. I couldn't find anything about calling people illiterate Spainards, I shall leave this thread for now and hope everything dies down.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard the term "bum chum" before yesterday (it's not a term you'd be likely to hear in America), yet it was immediately obvious that it was a synonym for "homosexual partner". Which it in fact is. And you missed the part where he jumped to the conclusion that the admin "Pedro" (who's British) was ignorant of the English language. Pretty funny, from a guy (Blofed) whose own knowledge of English is not native, which is clear from the way he writes, even forgetting his alleged ignorance of the meaning of "bum chum". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

He said those things on another page (it is all on the WP:AN/I thread if you really need to find it). I don't think anyone thought he was seriously suggesting anyone was homosexual, after all it is a taunt designed to offend someone who is *not* homosexual. Which does not make it any better. Hopefully Blofeld will cool down and reconsider his commenting all over the place. As Giano says: Fini. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

also I would like to apologise for saying 'ranting and spouting bile' on the winter palace talk page, I've been told off and would like to the bigger man and apologise for ranting at giacomo, but there was no need for him to call blofeld a troll--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You can call me a troll if you want, since this is not directly my battle - but if someone called me the stuff that Blofeld called others, and continued to post stuff on my page after I told him not to, "uncivil troll" would be among the nicer things I would have called him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

GA

Hi, I am happy to inform you that the Schenecker double homicide pass GA!--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw. Good collaboration. It might still need some light copy editing, we got off rather light on the review :) But I am off camping this weekend so probably won't get time. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah and I am going away for the weekend too. Let see what we can do next week;).--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA

See user talk:Epipelagic. I thought it best to redact the dialogue on the RfA project page. In a way, It's a good example of what the RfA clerks would be doing. If you don't agree, do please feel free to revert. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not the first time I have slightly cut out over Epipelagic's particular flavour of grievance airing. It probably won't be the last, at least till he take the time to demonstrate the problem to me. Your approach is the sensible one; he restored, but I have removed my own comment myself. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

user Zuggernaut's topic ban

(1)Please just as you wrote on Zuggernaut’s page wp:AGF, believe me when I write that I do not have a personal grudge against anybody. (2) This is about user:Zuggernaut’s topic ban. (3)I found myself getting tendentious on an article British Empire, so I have voluntarily stayed off that topic for about 3-4 months, so a couple of article ban wouldn’t kill him, if the community feels that he should stay away. (4)I just request you if you have the time and intention to understand why a person is driven to break rules, such as the one which was quoted in your proposal[3] (5)As an example I share with you an edit of user:Fowler&fowler’s making fun of Hindu deities[4], I have interacted with Fowler on a couple of talk pages and the above remark isn't oneoff but representative of his style, else where he has called an editor a hindu nationalist pov pusher [5], at the same article user:SpacemanSpiff steps in to revert revisions that user:HotWinters, begs are I have written sourced facts, plz take a look, there is nothing made up nor hidden unlike other user who is pushing his POV[6], then user:RegentsPark, comes with an article protection[7] (6)I declare that I have had an argument with M/s Spaceman and RegentsPark which I took to AN/I with the statement that They carry their bias into their job and do not deserve to be administrators, unless they learn and improve.[8], I have nothing to comment on who is right as far as the Mughal Empire article goes (I do not have a single edit on it), but taking action against Zuggernaut and ignoring the root cause is imo a little hasty. Above is a short example, which I took as after a disagreement with user:HotWinters[9] Fowler has written in reply to user:Zuggernaut, . I'm really not that attached to Wikipedia.[10], which really hurts me, given that I am very passionate about Wikipedia, as it is freeing knowledge from the clutches of the establishemnt. Please let it be clear that it is not about the persons involved but it is about what they have written, and their editing style, if I would summarise it, Fowler considers his opinions to be a substitute for wp:rs, that is what I conclude from the discussions I had with him on the talk pages of India and Ganges. I work from a very slow connection and it is 3.40 am local time here so I leave it to you to respond, more over it is a waste to write without diffs, and that is time consuming, it is almost dawn and the Koel's early risers have started to sing Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked the above, but it is possible that some isolated examples of inappropriate behavior are shown. However, I have watched several articles where Zuggernaut and Fowler&fowler have been active, and I am confident that Fowler is an excellent editor who understands and implements the core principles of Wikipedia very well. As might be expected, there are several editors who want to use Wikipedia to portray certain views regarding India, and Fowler has been invaluable in patiently explaining policies and ensuring that content is based on suitable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you back your statements with diffs please John.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fowler has struck his comments[11], and expressed regret for them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of my statement regarding Zuggernaut's ban:There were rounds of discussions and disagreements between editors Zuggernaut and Fowler, Zuggernaut brought this to the community's notice, seeking redress,[12], please note that Zuggernaut wished to bring the matter to the community's notice, requesting in his words that Neutral and uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the situation, rectify it... and take appropriate action against the editors per wp:GAME and wp:FAITACCOMPLI. I have not done a check on user contribution, this list is entirely from memory and with greatest respect to these editors Ncmvocalist, Jonhuniq, Chipmunkdavis, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Sodabottle, Snowded, Quigley, CarTick and ShyamSunder too edit in the same content space as Zuggernaut does. Amazingly the vote summary that Fowler has made also counts Athenean's vote, one of the editors against whom Zuggernaut brought up this ANI, So the fundamental condition that this issue be evaluated by the neutral and uninvolved has not been achieved. We need eyeballs that have no interest in the content and base their decision on Wikipedia rules, (I am not one of them). Editing behaviour of Fowler and the others mentioned in the notice need to be examined, was it a provocation for Zuggernaut? This aspect needs to be examined, and not just Zuggernaut's editing behaviour in isolation.I am waiting for administrator Errantx to respond to the above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to John I have evidence that belies your confidence that Fowler… understands and implements the core principles of Wikipedia very well, Fowler's editing has manifest itself as lacking decorum, one of the basis of the above notice, in one instance he argues that Indian English as a dialect does not exist, and then goes ahead adding Pakistani English tag to an article, which comes across as wp:point[13], he alleges perhaps that an editor's motivation is hiding shame about adverse conditions[14]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for further discussions regarding an editor. Please raise any concerns on an appropriate noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to John:On my solicitation I have been adviced that I may politely request an administrator to explain the basis of his actions, you are free to contribute to the discussion, on the other hand if you wish you may withdraw from it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh. You said: but taking action against Zuggernaut and ignoring the root cause is imo a little hasty. It is worth pointing out (as I did to Zuggernaut) that I have simply implemented a consensus agreement amongst community members, after doing due-diligence on the discussion to make sure there was substance to the arguments being put forward. Now; there may be scope for assessing the involvement of others in this topic area. I have not looked at depth into the wider problems there, and am unlikely to I am afraid. If you believe that Fowler&Fowler is himself causing issues on these topics then it might be appropriate to open an WP:RFC/U to present the evidence. If you do that (properly) then there is a high liklihood of someone uninvolved like myself being able to take a closer look. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(1)I stand corrected, on how exactly it is to be stated. (2)The consensus was arrived at amongst community members who had interacted with Zuggernaut, in view of the far reaching nature of the implementation, wasn't it necessary to go into the details? How should I put this... If the consensus was that Zuggernaut should apologise to Fowler/ other editors, or strike out a few edits, or even a short block, then such an implementation would have been fine, not now when the implemented consensus is so to say strong. (3)Will you kindly share the standard procedure that is followed in such an instance and show how the same course was taken in this case? Please. (4)I am not inclined to go in for formal redresal because of various reasons, the most important is that; we are not adversaries but partners on this project.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

i have to say that a lot of the oppose votes came from editors who had an opposing POV against him in various talk pages. not everyone disclosed this apparent conflict of interest. I personally think Zuggernaut made a poor defense of himself by not highlighting this by providing appropriate diffs. he probably thought the closing admin will do the job for him, just guessing. i am not an expert, i dont know if this conflict of interest is/should be taken into account when judging consensus. --CarTick (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than continue to make vague insinuations about the summation I performed please bring it up for review. I am happy that I enacted a consensus decision by the community, and am happy for you to have it reviewed. But continuing your opposition to the sanctions on my talk page is not the right way to go. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

i am sorry if it appeared that i am blaming you because i am not. i just think the case was not defended well by Zuggernaut. i agree with you this is not the right place and it is up to User:Zuggernaut if he wants to follow up. --CarTick (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Lifting_the_Indian_history_topic_ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't possible ask this at the ArbCom and clutter the page, please explain your statement Regarding your other comments; I have not gone into detail who I considered/found to be involved on the basis that it is unfair to discuss my views on the individual arguments presented. However, I was happy that editors within the topic area generally agreed there was a problem (even some of those opposing the restrictions) and that uninvolved editors agreed the restrictions should be imposed., does it mean that you did not give weight to those whom you considered involved? If it does the vote was a close call as shown by Zuggernaut's table, and Zuggernaut could perhaps have been given a warning, a short block, also you took no action on the AN/I's original concerns as raised by him. If bringing this discussion here is not kosher, I apologise in advance.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, as I mentioned above please consider assuming good faith over the process involved here. I clearly explained that I gave due weight to those who were involved in any dispute. What I am not going to do now is detail my views on the editors who contributed to the discussion or comment on their specific arguments/comments. Because that is unfair to those involved. Zuggernaut could perhaps have been given a warning, a short block; the only judgement I could make (which is the part you do not seem to understand here) is whether there was consensus for or against that set of proposals (or any substantial set of proposals agreed on in the discussion). I couldn't say "well, there seems to be a rough consensus behind this but I am going to impose a short block and a warning", that would be inappropriate.

I am happy for Arbcom or anyone else to look at my closure - and if someone uninvolved legitimately disputes it then we can discuss the matter and perhaps look at the issues again.

Similarly I am happy for Arbcom to look at the whole topic area and the behaviour of those there. I have no real opinion on that, other than there seems to be a lot of problems, which may ultimately be addressed at Arbcom anyway.

also you took no action on the AN/I's original concerns as raised by him. and I do not intend to, my action was related to judging consensus, though I encourage others to take a look at the matter he raised. I will put this carefully one last time; I judged consensus on one matter using my discretion and weighting the support appropriately. That is all :) That it is being dragged out so minutely is disappointing, I think a review at WP:AN would be appropriate. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I still dont quite get it, however as you feel that I am "draging it out minutely", I will drop this. I am also striking out what I consider now are trespassing your prerogative. Thanks.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry, shouldn't have snapped at you. I am out for the evening but when I get back will comment further --Errant ^(chat!) 16:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC):

I've had a look. Right now I am of the same opinion (although I am disturbed by Sue's slightly thoughtless "exposes") as I was before; that the right approach for Zuggernaut is to wait a short while, then appeal at AN/I. And to reflect on *why* this restriction has been imposed. Unfortunately your request for Arb's to review this new statement seems to have prompted more declines, so it looks like we will almost certainly not be seeing an Arbcom review at this point. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Sue, what you call thought I would call insightful.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

r.e. your latest comment on her page... I consider "casual editors" the great and inviolate strength of Wikipedia. It is those "close" to a subject (either pro- or anti- it) who often have the most difficulty writing about it objectively. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite

Errant, Hipocrite has filed yet another Wikiquette alert on me[15]. As you can see from my response there, I believe that this is another manifestation of his recent harassment and uncivil behaviour. I am inclined to file and AN/I against him, but I am worried that this will just enflame an already uneasy coexistance. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions?LedRush (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to see edits like this [16] and this[17] as deliberate antagonism.LedRush (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant, is it your intention not to respond at all? If so, I understand the reasoning, but I would like to know whether I should ask someone else's opinion or just go and report him.LedRush (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This week will be silly busy for me. We have about three product launches. Have commented, but am a little tipsy right now so might be a little ranty --Errant ^(chat!) 22:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That RfA reform thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE WITHOUT CONSENSUS

This is a formal reminder to not delete images, or text, without WP:consensus, especially when people have repeatedly said, over and over, and over and over, and over and over (again and again) to not delete an image. Do you understand? Do you really understand, even a little at all? Again, I am asking if you really understand that when people have said, "DO NOT DELETE" then that means, well, do not, do not, do not DELETE. Do not delete images. Do not delete text. Do not delete images and/or text. Just simply, do not, do not, do not delete the contents of articles, unless consensus has clearly, and totally, been established that deleting images (or text) will not be a problem. Do you understand this concept? Please reply below. For example, you deleted the concept-diagram from the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" without consensus. Honestly, I am trying to get the idea across to you, but you seem to be slow on the uptake. Your actions are continually disruptive to Wikipedia, and your continual unilateral deletion of images or text is very upsetting to some people. Your actions can be seen as a WP:BATTLEground mentality, because when people say not to do something, you just seem determined to go ahead and do it anyway. There's no stopping you. If there is some other language in which you would prefer this message be translated, then please let us know. Does any of this register with you, even partially, even slightly? This is just a friendly notice about the problem, as a first step. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to rant, fine. But I will not be responding. We can have a rational discussion, but I have no time for emotions. However, this time I will humour you (but, I won't pull punches). The image was bad, really poor. There was no real consensus for inclusion you all just edit warred over it; in-out-in-out-in-out round and round. There were definitely very valid concerns on the talk page, and I would consider a reasonable consensus to include an improved image. One was added, by rough agreement, earlier on today. You restored the crappy version alongside it. That doesn't make sense to me; I see your rationale over the labels that exist on the poor version. However I suggest that the right approach here is to add those labels to the better image (i.e. as I did...). Having two plans next to each other in the article is, frankly, pointless. Despite the note about a "friendly notice", what you wrote above was an emotional rant; if you cannot handle this article dispassionately it might be a good idea to work on other topics for a bit.

I took a step to improve the article, demanding a bureaucratic level of consensus for every. single. change. is boring, pointless and is part of the reason the article is in such a poor state. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On reflection; To my reading you are trying to be helpful and productive on the article. I think the content you are proposing to add definitely needs to be dealt with. However I can't find myself able to support your specific implementation of that content. I apologise for being harsh about the image you created; I've been trying to critique it sensitively for the last couple of days and it didn't really seem to get across. It's criticism... but only of the limits of your ability, not on the effort put into it. The image isn't great, but on the other hand it moved things forward so I can't fault the idea :) Same applies to the text you added today. I simply couldn't support it as text to keep in the article long term, even though largely the content was moving in the right direction! This trial is big, and long term I see no reason why we cannot have a couple of sub-articles with more detail (it is already quite long as a single article).

I pride myself of being neutral on topics when I edit them. But it is incredibly hard to engross yourself in an article and not end up with some pre-conceptions. No matter how hard one tries to avoid the influence of those opinions they do creep in. In cases such as this I tend to find that people group together into small "factions" (a crappy description, but will have to do) who tend to largely end up on the same page content wise. I think we all have to try extremely hard to ignore our opinions on the topic, and to listen to each others views. This latter point is crucial; OhioStandards comments today were excellent and really got me to realise that I had completely failed to properly explain my objections to the content (as you suggested, I mostly quoted a policy and left it at that :S). I've learned the lesson, deal in specifics, and it all came from listening to a new voice.

Now. My impression is you have strong views on the topic of this article. I won't patronise you by quoting policies about this, mostly because I find those policies idiotic and akin to saying "don't think of elephants". I also won't do you the dis-service of trying to second guess what your views are (again, mostly because I consider them irrelevant). I'm definitely going to retract my recommendation you step back from this topic and try other areas (although, I often find it is a useful exercise, sometimes, to forget about issues and come back to reconsider them later) - that was patronising, and I apologise. However what I will say is that having any strong emotional attachment to a topic is going to cloud your approach to it. So, please, do try to empathise with other commentors on that page.

From a practical perspective I also encourage you to participate more on the talk page. It appears that you only have limited time online (I can only consider that a good thing :) I wish I could procrastinate less here!) so I do understand your approach of stick something in and argue it later. But the image thing you could have read the talk page and seen the reason why I removed it!

That's all a bit of a ramble, because I've had an 18 hour day and am a little sleepy :) but hopefully it makes sense. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for those replies. I hope that, in the future, you will open a dialog before deleting any image, or paragraph of text, from the article, as an attempt to discuss options, beforehand, rather than just delete all and ask questions later. You might not realize the full situation about the new floor-plan image, but suppose that image is actually a copyright violation, and it will be deleted later from Wikipedia.... Once that image is gone, then there would be none left in the article (and no image improved from continuing the prior consensus discussions). This is a concern when working on an article for 3 years. Always prepare for massive deletions in the future: there is no harm of repeating some information or some related images across various parts of the article, because as people delete some of it, then other parts remain to convey the basic information. There has been a strong text-bias in Wikipedia articles, when many people could understand much faster by having 25 images in an article, with several similar images to show connections in the house. As for the size of the article, several people have tried, with foresight, to get the article split into multiple subarticles, but several attempts were stopped at formal WP:AfD discussions. The article must be allowed to grow (massively) to cover the basic details (6 crimes: murder, sexual assault, simulating a crime scene, carrying a deadly weapon, theft of 300 euros, 2 credit cards, etc.), and the article should describe the murder of Kercher, as to who people think did it and how it happened and why they believe what they do. All of that information requires a great deal of text. Also, each suspect should be allowed to state how they think it happened, because per WP:NPOV, each suspect's viewpoint is part of being neutral about the whole event. Suppose that a suspect has been framed, that police went to a house, and found an empty shoebox then bought size-11 shoes, dipped them in watery blood and falsified shoe-prints on a pillow and floor-tiles. Wikipedia cannot pre-judge who is guilty, but only present the major viewpoints in the event, always aware how a suspect's viewpoint is NOT a fringe theory but rather part of the central core of a neutral perspective on the matter. Suppose witnesses said a wealthy student owed about 300 euros and had lost his ATM card and needed money fast on a national holiday. For those reasons, a crime article should include the basic details, to help readers gain an encyclopedic (all-encompassing) view of a subject. -Wikid77 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's... a pretty disappointing reply to see. I won't deal with all of it except; I am not sure why you bring up WP:FRINGE, because I can't see anyone arguing that their description of the even if fringe (on the other hand speculating, as you have above, about the shoe print is fairly fringe). As soon as you find yoursefl saying/typing "Suppose a", stop, and consider why that might be a problem. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I have to tell you that I am personally a bit suspicious over the AFD result of the second Colin Hatch AFD result today. First of all it was closed by the same user that closed the first one prematurly and also I am still personally not convinced that the actual "result" should be delete. In my opinion a closing of this AFD should have been handled by someone else than this user once again for the second time, pone could question that users bias or non-bias in the direction of delete or keep. I want your opinion before taking it back to Deletion review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hatch--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I cant put it on deletion review again. Because people will question my motives for that. Even though I am personally of the opinion that the AFD has been for the second time closed inappropriatly and biased. I think it is highly inappropriate that the same user closes a deletion reviewed article concerning the user. It is a case of quite obvious bias in my opinion where a user has to be "right" and close it as delete again. I would have felt more comfortable if it had been reviewed by someone else than the first closing user. Hope you see my concern.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you talked to the closing admin? I'd suggest that is always the first point of call. Possibly ask him (politely) how he arrived at judging the consensus? And perhaps just politely ask if he would mind either a) getting a second opinion or b) re-opening it and posting on WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to take another look. Alternatively, ask for the article to be userfied (in fact, I can do that for you if you want) and work on it in your userspace - if in a few months it definitely does become notable, getting it moved back to article space shouldn't be an issue :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Computer:Casle rock

Please come to the talk and give your opinion. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

• News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news

• In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Hey, i would like to turn this red sentence into a quote. Do you know the correct format please?

Hi. WP:QUOTE gives some guidance on this. However, in this specific case how you have styled it is the correct way (except it needs double quote marks like this -> " ). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

MoMK

I noticed you made the following comment on the MoMK talk page [18]. I didn't want to derail conversations there, but why would you support sub-articles in general, but not one on Knox? I have been truly confounded by people's reluctance for such an article when the readers so obviously want and need one (based on search criteria).LedRush (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think that BLP1E applies to Knox; all we really have on her is in relation to the murder and trials (I suppose they could be stretched to several events... but it is all interrelated). On the other hand, within the topic of the murder we also have two fairly large trials (and their appeals). It might be possible to deal with them in multiple articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But BLP1E only relates to people who are low profile or are likely to remain low profile (the second prong of the test). Knox hasn't been low profile since the murder, and, therefore, the policy is not applicable to her.LedRush (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Inter-related" would seem to be the killer word. Ultimately, it all stems from the original murder, and this would include related phenomena such as lawsuits and the recent TV film. WP:BLP1E, however, states that a "separate biography may be appropriate" for persons whose roles are "substantial and well-documented" - both adjectives would seem to apply to Knox's association. At the very least, the prospect of a sub-article is no longer a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E, as it may well have been in the past. SuperMarioMan 22:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, there is no killer word as the policy never applied. The policy states that "[i]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." (emphasis added). The second prong of the test was never applicable: Knox is not low profile. In fact, it's hard to imagine someone less low profile.LedRush (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the phrasing of the "first prong" (to use a similar expression) makes mention of the "context of a single event" - by "inter-related", I intended to suggest that, from one perspective, Knox has never escaped the "context of a single event" and that there may yet be some worth in the BLP1E argument (this is open to debate, of course, and I'm beginning to doubt the whole single-event issue anyway). I don't deny that Knox is quite a high-profile subject now, and I would argue that that particular profile has risen considerably since the June 2010 AfD. Wikid77 has started work on another draft, which seems to look promising - much improved on the older version which prompted the deletion discussion last year. SuperMarioMan 22:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No doubt you are right when discussing the first prong of the test. My point was that regardless of how you come out on whether this is one event, the policy is clear that it relates to people who are notable for one event and are low profile. Knox isn't low profile, so it doesn't matter whether the events are interrelated (and therefore one event) or not. The policy simply doesn't apply. If there wasn't the second prong of the test (low profile), guys like Sully [19] would not have their own articles, nor would the many other people accused of murder with biographical articles. I have to believe that the policy was worded and crafted this way for a reason, and that we have so many articles on people notable for "one event" because of that wording.LedRush (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that I understand that. For some, however, the whole "one event" to-be or not-to-be question may reduce the significance of "profile". You recently suggested (at least I seem to remember such a comment being made, although I can't remember where or when) that it would be impractical to develop a Knox article until the wider community embraces the concept - I'm inclined to agree here. SuperMarioMan 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Unfortunately, the people who are against a Knox article have argued that they can't decide whether or not to support an article until they see one (which, of course, is not only hooey, but helps to ensure that a good article is never made). Also, I can't believe that the "low profile" prong of the test is directly dependent on the "single event" part of the test. Otherwise, it would not make any sense to have two, separate prongs to the test. Knox's profile is extremely high, regardless of whether her notability is dependent on one event. She has dozens of books, documentaries and TV specials on her. Her family gives interviews out the wazoo, and a recent documentary says the interest in Knox was a media "feeding frenzy". I don't care what definition you use or how many events there were...she's not low-profile.LedRush (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant, do you have any thoughts on my interpretation of BLP1E? I've never gotten any of the editors who oppose a Knox article to directly address my reading of the policy, though I've asked many times.LedRush (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are setting too much stock by the phrase "low profile". Or, rather, you are glossing over the word "otherwise" - if we argue from the strict wording of the policy (something I am no fan of) the point is to identify whether she has any profile outside of the event for which she is notable - in this case, I don't believe that is so.

Moreover BLP1E is not prescriptive in the sense that if the person is of a high profile they automatically get a biography - BLP1E goes on to say that if they are well documented within a high profile event it may be appropriate to build a biography.

The key word, the one that gets to the spirit of this rule, is "biography". So the question we should be asking ourselves is not "is Knox high profile" but "can we write a proper Biography, and is it appropriate to do so". In this case I think not. The vast (almost exclusive) majority of material about her relates to this trial, outside of that she is a normal person and should be accorded the usual extension of privacy. Part of her life came under scrutiny (although we should be dealing with those as minimally as possible) but again still within the context of the one event.

At this stage I don't feel it is possible to write a biography of Knox, because what we would be writing is some insignificant detail about her childhood/early adulthood tacked to the front of a big long chunk about her trial.

So a trial article makes much more sense. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are conflating two issues: whether you think Knox merits an article and whether the policy argues against it (the policy doesn't prohibit an article for people that meet the test, it is just a factor against an article). While I believe that Knox clearly merits one from the dozens of books, TV shows and documentaries, I'll leave that discussion alone. My issue here is the misuse of policy to support certain opinions.

Your reading of the term "otherwise" renders the second prong of the test meaningless because if the person were being covered in secondary sources outside of the one event, the first prong of the test would not have been met. Generally, rules should be interpreted to give e plain meaning of the text and rules should not be interpreted to render whole swaths of the text meaningless. Not only is my reading supported by the plain meaning of the text and which makes the different prongs of the text have distinct meanings, it is supported by how other editors have interpreted this rule in other contexts. If we followed your interpretation, we would have far fewer biographical articles on Wikipedia.

Finally, and much less important, I am not arguing just from the strict wording of the rule. As stated above, I believe the intent of the rule is clear and consistent with how other editors have actually edited Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with your reading/interpretation of the policy, and your views on the intent of the policy :) (FWIW I have consistently seen consensus come down on the side of my view of the policy). Outside of her trial, Knox has no significance. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though as speakers of English, we need to read what the policy actually says. Even deconstructionists acknowledge that words have meanings.

I'd also like to see the examples of where the policy has come down on your reading of the rule (outside of Knox). I ask not to challenge you, but to learn how people are reasoning through these issues. We have so many articles that would not be here without my reading of the policy that I suspect that your examples must have a fundamental difference from Knox.LedRush (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how any interpretation of BLP1E (which is clear) could come down on the side of approving a biography; it specifically asks for coverage outside of the event, and that simply does not exist for Knox. Sure, the even itself is long term and ongoing, but still just the one event :) I can't buy the argument that by virtue of being an extended event the problems of BLP1E are overcome.

I will try and find some other examples I cited, it was the end of last year we had a criminal that was only notable for his crime... will find it. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that BLP1E is clear, which is why I wanted to see how you could interpret it to exclude a person who is not low-profile in contradiction to the wording and intent of the policy. You have offered your explanation, even if I find it unconvincing. As you look for your examples, ask yourself if they have received as mucn media coverage as Knox has (either personally or as part of the crime). In addition to Sully, who is known for only one event yet has his own article(in addition to an article on the event), you can find biographical articles (in most cases in addition to articles on the actual crime) on the following: Elizabeth Smart, Lori Berenson, Jared Lee Loughner, Bradley Manning, Ted Bundy, the Menendez Brothers, Unabomber, the Manson Family, John Allen Muhammad, Lee Boyd Malvo, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold ,Seung-Hui Cho, Charles Carl Roberts and David Karesh, among, many, many others. This is not a case of OTHERSTUFF, this is the policy being interpreted correctly regarding people famous for one even, but who aren't low profile. And most of them don't have profiles which have remained as high as Knox's for as long as hers has been.LedRush (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well a lot of those prove the poiunt. A wealth of research and detail on Bundy exists, and at the time I assure you that media coverage was way way in excess of anything Knox has had! Same for the Mansons and a lot of the others. The point I consistently make is that outside of the trial there is no real information of any significance about Knox (Bundy, for example, is of interest as a known serial killer from the perspective of motivation etc.), she is young and hasn't done much except go to uni :). Sure, in a few years more detail might exist that makes a biography worthwhile, but right now there is no point. Manning and Loughner are, IMO, outliers that shouldn't really exist. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible for the examples to prove your point. You can argue that they don't prove my point because they've gotten more media attention, but that is clearly not the case for Sully, Elizabeth Smart, Lori Berenson, Jared Lee Loughner, Bradley Manning, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Charles Carl Roberts and probably not true for the Menendez Brothers, John Allen Muhammad, Lee Boyd Malvo, and David Karesh (many of whom had more media coverage, but for much shorter periods). These examples prove that people famous for one event often get biographical articles, and that this often happens despite a lower profile than Knox, and therefore support my plain language reading of BLP1E.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hey, umm could you please move-protect my talk page...personally, and correct me if I am wrong, I don't see the point of moving a page that's stated purpose is to endorse the collaboration of the community. mauchoeagle _(c) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I can if you want - that is mostly to halt page-move vandalism and it is only usually done as a preventative measure (where the page suffers from page-move attack). But if you want it protected I guess there is no harm in doing so :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic bans and British Isles

I just saw your recent suggestion (one that I think has merit) on ANI wrt to topic bans from interaction and discussion of the british isles topic, broadly construed. However we (the wikipedia community) already imposed WP:GS/BI on the subject area. These restrictions include the provision for a full outright topic ban (coded as TB02) from all editing, discusion and interaction on the topic (imposable by any uninvolved admin).
I also noticed that the involved editors once again derailed a communityenforcement discussion (ie your proposal to add this discretionary sanction) - they have all been warned multiple times to keep discussions on-topic and to 'stop derailing enforcement threads' (I've used this precise wording many times in the last year).
It's good to see some fresh eyes on this issue, I'll be keeping an eye on this as much as I can but let me know if any comes up--Cailil ^talk 11:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I never saw that. Handy. The scope of being able to impose one of those bans seems limited (i.e. relating only to insertion/removal and not covering "taking this dispute to multiple forums and boring the hell out of everyone" :)). Which is a shame because I'd be happy to hand some of them out :) It really is a huge nationalist mess, I remember when TFOWR was here, he seemed to spend most of his time fielding the issue. Will dip into the issue again next week when I get back from holiday. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the explicit wording of WP:GS/BI seems a bit limited however as the topic is under probation "Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT". So WP:POINT and WP:DE are indeed covered. In my view a number of editors (one just warned by me again the other day) have drifted into the area of directly breaching WP:POINT and generally creating a 'poisonous atmosphere'--Cailil ^talk 15:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your block

Your block of 66.220.231.10 (talk · contribs), although good block for vandalism, isn't it a bit much 1 year? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit to being in a bit of a harsh mood this evening (I initially indeffed it by mistake!) so I might have gone a bit longer than I would normally. However I checked the contribs and it is pretty much all vandalism from them, the last block was 2 weeks and they pretty much came back all guns blazing. As it is a school a lengthy softblock seemed the right approach. If you still think it is too much I don't mind pulling it back to a few months :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just thought of it. Indef would be good because that it would force people to make accounts for themselves. I did see that you didn't disable account creation and you did a soft block. It is pretty much just vandalism. It would be good for everyone, because uninvolved students could make good edits and it could be tracked from 1 account only. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In principle I agree :) but policy is not to block IP's indefinitely except in extremely exceptional circumstances. Because even long term fixed IP's can change. We get a lot of schoolblocks on the unblock mailing list where admins forgot to leave account creation enabled. I reckon that soft-blocking all school IP's for a year the first time they vandalise would be a really useful way to cull the vandalism. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I never known about that before. Before, I didn't know about softblock until that I did a proposal that was already made! ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)