User talk:ErrantX

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Userboxes

This user lives in England.

UTCThis user's time zone is UTC.

This user assumes good faith.

This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

SBThis user lets SuggestBot recommend articles to edit once a month.

more...

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

Search user languages

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[1] (5)As an example I share with you an edit of user:Fowler&fowler’s making fun of Hindu deities[2], 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 [3], 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[4], then user:RegentsPark, comes with an article protection[5] (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.[6], 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[7] Fowler has written in reply to user:Zuggernaut, . I'm really not that attached to Wikipedia.[8], 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[9], 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,[10], 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[11], he alleges perhaps that an editor's motivation is hiding shame about adverse conditions[12]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)

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)

Hipocrite

Errant, Hipocrite has filed yet another Wikiquette alert on me[13]. 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 [14] and this[15] 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)