User talk:Eraserhead1

Edge Church controversy

Hello, due to 'Yellow Monkey' being on 'Wikibreak', can you please remove 'Yellow Monkey's' revision
here: [1] which states
"Protected Edge Church: vandalism" and renew this revision
[2] which was undone
by 'Ozdaren' here [3]. 'Ozdaren'
stated on the same reference just stated that the reason for undoing revision number 393958939 was
due to "Vandalism. Pseudo reference to magistrate's court." Correctly, Ozdaren observed the reference was wrong -
however the correct reference for the specific transcript of the court case in question
which was included in revision number 393958939 is "AMC-09-4608", or the penalty number for
the defendant who won the case is "AMC-09-4608/1". Please contact the Adelaide Magistrate's
court on (08) 8204 2444 to confirm the validity of these references, and please
allow revision number 393958939 to be restored in relation to the 'controversy'
section, second paragraph, with the now updated and correct reference to court case number.
Sincere Regards, have a nice day. Ps, I hope I edited this ok, I'm new to 'usertalk'.
Truthforme (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any other sources (e.g. Local newspaper reports?). I think as the content I believe you want to add is longer than a sentence then you'll need more sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, unforunately there are no newspaper reports concerning the arrest. I managed to find the group that protests against the church though, one video and one article online. The preacher who was arrested is from this group. Perhaps it would be better to word it this way under the controversy section: ie, ["A rival local church group has protested against the Edge church firstly concerning Mike
Guglielmucci,[Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6yVNEOd7M] and secondly concerning the cliche' message
preached at Edge Church, stating "Edge Church Adelaide is notorious for these types
of clichés along with the rest of the apostate congregations in Adelaide,
it is the doctrine of the devil to say that we as believers cannot correct people
in sin providing we do it in love and with a motive to see the person repent
and turn to Christ." [Source: http://www.churchadelaide.com/edge-church-adelaide-cliches]"]

The above reflects elements of an ongoing controversy between the two church groups & may be helpful. Kind Regards. Ps, excuse my

ignoramus 'wikichat' editing - I am very sorry I am still learning :) Truthforme (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Ps, An addition to the 'Youth Alive' wiki-page (semi-protected due to "vandalism")
in a 'controversy' heading would be appropriate in the following text:
"Youth Alive attracts opposition from conservative Christians in both Brisbane [Source: http://josh-williamson.xanga.com/562587796/battlefied-report/]
and South Australia [Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOPZsZklqcI]."
If this could be added in a controversy section? Kind Regards Truthforme (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid without sources that satisfy WP:RS then I cannot add any such content to the article, and if you do the same it will be reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How to warn editors who go abusive!

Hello,

I saw that you gave rating to Kannada article. Thanks for doing that. I have seen that someone from IP address shown below is posting abusive comments for kannada and telugu languages articles and is using his own research to substantiate it. It may de deeply offensive since it can trigger hatredness among languages. I have tried to replay to him and removed some sections. I dont know how to warn them not to do so. Please see that something can be done in this case since I cannot do it all the time. What is the normal procedure in such cases. Can I even say about such things here? I dont know. Bring it to the attention of admins if possible. The said IP address is: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.195.13.109 }

Thanks with regards. 27.57.113.210 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DFID and Reliable Sources

Eraserhead1,

You say that the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are not reliable sources,

First of all: Can you prove to me that they definitively are not, as I have not been able to find anything in Wikipedia that clarifies your stance.

Secondly: You state that the BBC is a reliable source when interestingly enough the Director General, Mark Thompson, has publicly admitted that the BBC has recently been guilty of strong left-wing bias and has purposefully not reported on certain sensitive topics such as immigration etc.

Even if you stand by your assertion that such news outlets are not in fact Reliable Sources, then I still see no problem with using them in a section entitled "Controversy". For example, if a famous celebrity had naked photos posted of them and this story was reported by the Daily Mail for example, then I assume it would be OK to reference the Daily Mail then. How is this situation any different?

The Daily Mail article referenced included a quote from an MP, do you think that they just made such a quote up, does the Daily Mail in fact have a history of deliberately and grossly misquoting public officials ?

As much as it seems that you would like to not have the Daily Mail recognized as a reliable source, you can certainly not argue that everything or even most things within its pages has been falsified, is slanderous or has a noticeable bias.

I understand that items that I had included in the Controversy section were ones that only criticized the DFID. However, how about instead of just deleting the whole section that I had written, why don't you attempt to find some items that praise the DFID and defends the high salaries of it's top employees. As much as you try to make it look like you are just upholding Wikipedias rules, I strongly suspect that you are in fact just irritated that I have added something that criticizes the DFID so strongly. To prove that this is not the case, I think it would be a good idea for you to find reliable sources for the section you deleted and add them as references instead so that it can be re-instated.

Milesstern (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

For further discussion see Talk:Department for International Development. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Wiki is sometimes fulfilling, but sometimes very aggravating! P.S. When it a topic I have an ounce of knowledge about, I fix citation and similar issues with articles, and then remove the tags. See Iceland spar for an example, and Sunstone (medieval) for couple of recent examples. I just don't know anything about the page in question, and ran across it somehow. I don't "drive by" tag or untag. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely annoying for someone to remove a tag multiple times from an article like that where it is so clearly required - but sometimes people aren't perfect <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The question is, how do we flag the article so someone will know to make it better? I know nothing about the subject, so me trying to make the article better might actually make it worse. As a related question, isn't there someplace on Wiki to have policy discussions? I think the editor's point that "age" be considered a factor when removing a tag is worthy of discussion (I disagree, but I do see his point). Where is that place, and would it do any good to have such a discussion? Putting aside one editor, the issue is how things work in general. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably WP:VILLAGEPUMP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Maturity

Please, are you going to ignore a reasonable comment just because you didn't like the way it was said? By doing what you did, you didn't solve any problems, you just left them in place because of some minor petty issue. By the way, could you just tell me what exactly makes the word "chink" racist? Is it not the simple fact that you want it to be - I never said it was racist, never intended it to be (if you don't agree, just point out exactly where I said the Chinese were inferior beings), and was just interpreting an observation. In fact the choice of word was completely pertinent, since, judging by your edit summary, you realised who I was talking about. In light of all this, I have restored will re-restore my comment. 90.37.124.23 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly in my culture the term is racist, and I don't understand why there was a need to use a derogatory word in this case when there are plenty of better ones to use instead.

With regards to the issue you've raised I'm not really interested either way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, in the future just change the word to Chinese (or whatever else may be relevant), with a little hidden comment explaining the change. I must say I don't like the way there are so many explicatives over Wikipedia, I'd prefer them to be hidden. Regards, 90.37.124.23 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for reverting your edit for a second time as the language was then acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

FYI, your placement of a general cleanup tag on Metropolitan District Railway is under discussion since the tag is up for deletion - see right above the arbitrary break. Whether you're for the deletion or not (or neither), I'm guessing it would help if you provided some insight as to why you tagged the article using {{Cleanup}}. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Responded at the time there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Paradise Community Church

Why would you tell the IP that they should wait to make their edit until the end of the semi-protection? The whole point of the "edit semi-protected" template is for legitimate users to be able to request changes to articles that we've had to lock because of vandalism. It seems awfully unfriendly to me to tell them that they're just out of luck for a few weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the comment because I personally don't understand what needs changing, and I can't get the page unprotected. However if you can help great :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

re: IP block

Hello - thanks for the message. The IP is an open proxy - it allows someone to hide their identity while using the Internet. This particular IP is wide open on just about every port, including 80 and 443, which are used for HTTP.

There's no restriction against reading Wikipedia for them, but we do not allow open proxies, including Tor, to edit Wikipedia - we block them on sight. Even admins can't edit through Tor. It's a hard and fast rule, no exceptions, period.

There may be instances of good edits from OPs, but the damage they can do is far greater. We've got a guy right now who is harassing two good editors every day as often as he can. (I hope he doesn't stop, because every IP he edits from (so far) is an open proxy, and he's helping us block a lot of them.) Instead of blocking them indefinitely, we block them for very long periods of months or years.

If you see a block reason of {{blocked proxy}}, we've manually confirmed that the IP is an open proxy or a Tor exit node. Thanks again for the message - if you have more questions or if I can help, just ask. :-) KrakatoaKatie 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User_Talk:YellowMonkey

Hello, just a quick word of thanks for your support over there. 121.102.41.166 (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted requested moves

Just noticed this edit of yours. Please do not move the relisting statement like this - the relisting statement (or at least the time stamp of it) has to go before the original timestamp as otherwise the bot won't pick up the relisting. Dpmuk (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry as well, rereading that I realise it was a bit strongly worded - it's an oddity of the bot and you wouldn't know unless you spend a lot of time at RM. The bot owner isn't around much any more so trying to get more complicated, not strictly necessary changes made like this isn't so easy. Dpmuk (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN for John Barry (composer)

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

YM

The best thing you can do regarding YMs talk page is to leave it alone. You can certainly leave my comments there alone. If I wanted to contribute further to the RfC - and I don't - I would post there directly. Please refrain from posting there on my behalf. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to second Mattinbgn's comment. If people wish to post on the RfC talk page they can do so, but please do not move conversations from one location to another. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As the IP that published the letter, I am mildly in favour of at least linking the discussion from the RfC page. However, I do want my open letter to stay in YM's talk page, because (contrary to most other comments) YM was and still is the intended recipient. Cheers 220.100.103.162 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just done that, I hope that's OK with everyone. 220.100.103.162 (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's fine to have moved it back. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life

You might be interested in WP:ANI#Canvassing. JJB 04:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Personal attack?

I made no personal attack. This is fact and I just want to let other know. If you don't like, report it to ANI. I'm willing to answer all questions. BTW, I'm not unfamiliar with WP policies so don't template me. Thank you.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone annoying in the title is a personal attack. Please don't do it. An ANI discussion should be un-needed in this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean anonymous. Sorry for this typo.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it[4]. Sorry again for the typo as I am not a native English speaker. And please stop the reverting spree.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I only reverted again because it still said annoy when I pressed revert, sorry about that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A little rude?

I would like to discuss with you personally and politely. You might remove this massage if you want. I don't know what you are thinking when you considered this letter only possibly a little rude. In my opinion, a letter which asked person to quit Wikipedia forever and is posted very close to this person's most important holiday is very rude. And the writer is also very smart to choose such a right time and right place to make the situation more dramatic. What are your opinions? --115.75.150.184 (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to discuss this with you. While I don't agree with you entirely its always good to have a different perspective on the matter, and, along with Dr. Blofeld, you haven't just offered your uncritical support which is good :). On that line I'd like to encourage you to get involved in any further discussions on YellowMonkey's adminship. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will until the return of YM. I have tried to contact him through email but I have got any responses yet. After YM returns, I will not get involve as I know the dramatic atmosphere an anonymous can create. I could confidently say that I have more experience in dealing with problematic IPs than you so I know what should I do (I have joined Vietnamese Wikipedia since 2004).--115.75.150.184 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

With regards to holidays I would say that Christmas is the only one that I would be quite surprised that people wouldn't know about - but mainly thats down to be being used commercially worldwide. Second tier holidays that people probably know about are things like Easter, Chinese new year and Ramadan, but each of those has a billion-odd followers. Compared to those Tet is much smaller as its only celebrated by the Vietnamese. Although as Tet is also the lunar new year it is similar to Chinese New Year, but it isn't particularly obvious that lunar new year would also be important in Vietnam and therefore I think it is reasonable to assume good faith with regards to his timing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You should consider a factor that the person who is behind this IP is come from Japan and so that he or she should clearly know about lunar new year and its meaning. And the Tet often considered to be influenced by Chinese Lunar New Year or even a part of it so he would know it anyways through the current massive media coverage about Chinese Lunar New Year festivals. And the last thing is that YM put a red flag with Vietnamese text into his user page, I don't thing it is too hard to guess his race, this is the weakest factor but it still is a guessable factor. The letter clearly show that this IP has carefully investigated YM's case for a long time (just look at the way he or she provide diffs and links). So I hardly believe he or she has never made any guessings (and by this way, I also strongly believe his claim of not knowing the AFC/YellowMonkey is no more than a lie). For Vietnamese, if you get bad thing in the beginning of a lunar new year, you will have bad luck for the whole year. Therefore, we always try not to have any unhappy things (in the other words, we try to hide until the Tet end). I'm sorry but with these factors I can not assume this IP do not know about these things.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Its true that he has clearly been around for a while, but its also clear that this IP missed the RFC, so they haven't been around that much. And actually since 1873 the Japanese have celebrated New Year on the 1st January not on the lunar calendar - that you didn't know this means its perfectly reasonable that he doesn't know the Vietnamese don't do the same. Especially as the Thai celebrate their New Year on a fixed date. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think if he or she isn't new at all? he or she praticed in the past but then he or she decided to make a play so that YM would get more pressure and quit. This is only my speculation but I found it is reasonable since in the RFC, one editor named Access Denied who accused YM's photo pools crashed his PC, has been blocked for sockpuppeting and some other were discovered as socks. YM's record of quick and swift blocking of socking accounts has brought him not only many supporters but also a significant numbers of haters. You see in the RFC, the RFC aimed to request YM change his way of blocking people and protecting pages but it turned out to be a people's court or a witch hunt where YM got shot from all sides. Some editors even digged the distant-past actions of YM to accuse him.

You got some reasonable points. But Japanese still have a festival in the beginning of Lunar New Year called Setsubun and a significant numbers of people still consider Lunar New Year is an important day (they have two new year days in one year, I know it because I'm learning Japanese languae). I hard to believe the person behind this IP hasn't known anything.

After all, we would get to nowhere if we only keep speculating. Given your points, I agree to assume good faith that this IP don't know anything.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good points, especially with Access Denied. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I called the comment only a "little rude" because he used other language around his comment saying that he hoped YellowMonkey wouldn't return to the project which means that I don't feel the comment is a particularly serious personal attack, if it is a personal attack at all. However it is probably fair to say that the first sentence probably has made the discussion more dramatic. Maybe when I initially restored the comment I should have left out the first sentence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. You should remove the first sentence as I immediately assumed bad faith after read it. I am not very good at writing English but you can feel the heat on my texts. According to Vietnamese customs, asking a person to leave forever after he or she contributed much is a very rude and offensive to do, especially the way this IP did. I don't know much about your culture, but I think this is not acceptable at all. YM has fault but I don't think his fault is that serious and is that counter-productive so that we need to death sentence him.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

<shrug> I don't think its quite as big a deal in my culture. It is a little rude, but I don't think its the same - asking someone to leave is making them lose a lot of face, which is much more of an issue in eastern culture. To be honest I'd expect that it probably is rude in Japanese culture, but I'm not sure, though given how assertive he is he's probably a westerner. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK he might be a Westerner, given his English skills. I don't think so many Japanese could be that good at English. I agree to accept this point.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the situation becoming more dramatic, I think a lot of the reason is down to the issues of YellowMonkey's adminship not being looked at more seriously sooner (and looking at someones adminship should absolutely not be a punishment, no-ones perfect.). I also think that significant number of his supporters were attacking the IP editor and making slightly pointless +1 posts rather than tackling the arguments presented in a meaningful way. This appears to be down to some editors finding it extremely difficult to accept that YellowMonkey's adminship hasn't had its issues. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Different cultural spheres have different reactions against specific things. You are similar to the idea of the-rule-of-law as you country have a respective judicial system so I am not surprise of you intention to pursue sanctions against YM. You think this is a right thing to do; YM did wrong and he need to have sanctions. And I respect your intention. But in my point of view, and I think it will be better for Wikipedia if we can act this way, everything should be resolved accordingly to the common sense as it can greatky reduce the infamous Wikipedia Drama. Blocking or removal of tools should only use as a process to prevent the whole system get hurt by someone. YMdid wrong and did misuse his tools. But after he was warned (AFAIK, 4 times including the AFC ), he has apologized for his conduct and make some promises. From this time until now, I haven't found he has ever seriously broken his promises as he only edited a little after. We still can have an other look if he break any of his promises.

The IP editor should accept these attacks because many vandals use IP as a very good shield when they vandalize Wikipedia or some true newcomer use IP to make test edits on Wikipedia's articles. And then all IP have got prejudgment for some others' actions. This is very regrettable but we can not do anything to change people's though in this time. For this IP, he or she made a serious request with a rude comment but who would take responsibility for it? So you should not be so surprise when supporters tend to attack him than tack his argument. Just let it be.

And I don't think some editors finding it extremely difficult to accept that YellowMonkey's adminship hasn't had its issues. I closely monitor the case of YM from the beginning of it. Most supportive editors feel the way YM got treated excessively and unfairly for what he has done for Wikipedia. An editors has used the word "witch hunt" for that situation.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

With regards to culture given that all the major English speaking countries (with the notable exception of Scotland) have their legal systems based on common law so I think to be part of the project we are going to follow a "common-law" approach. EDIT: Though in the RFC so far the agreement is more similar to your suggestion than hard sanctions. And while IP editors do sometimes behave badly there is a serious issue (which is even getting press coverage) with newcomers not being welcomed enough into the project, and that will make severely damage the project - most vandals are school-kids mucking around, by YellowMonkey over-reacting he probably encourages them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

superbowl

Hi, if you are going to move the oppose vote out of the hat which says the superbowl is too american then please move this support vote out of the hat which argues the game is financially significant. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the oppose vote is borderline (which is why I didn't remove it from the hat immediately). However as I support posting more American football content on ITN and I don't want anyone to feel that I've attempted to remove opposing views from my own I thought it was best that it was publicly visible.

Comparing the Superbowl to other sports that have been recently posted and making financial comparisons is also unneeded and off-topic - especially as the Superbowl is on WP:ITN/R and doesn't need any justification to post - just an article update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am not questioning your neutrality or your desire to appear neutral. But "some votes are more equal than others" does not strike me as an equitable policy, and my statement is perfectly civil and provides a rationale whereas other simple support votes were not hatted. I am also not asking that the discussion folowing my vote be restored, just the vote. Please treat me with equal respect and remove the vote from the hat. If you want to do so with only the support comment and omit the rest of the sentence about sumo and cricket (even tho they are recent debates) that would be perfectly fine with me. No need for talkback, I watch pages I have edited. Thanks.μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough :). I've moved your vote outside of the hatting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A scholar and a gentleperson. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Basmati

Hi there, I dropped a note here. 124.147.78.105 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Third Way (think tank)

Per WP:BRD, I won't revert your edit, but I've created a section for discussing the criticism section of this article on the talkpage: see Talk:Third Way (think tank)#Criticism section. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

re. China.

Hello. You have a new message at Nhajivandi's talk page.

Protections

I think you and YM may have inadvertently highlighted the biggest problem with indefinite protections. Looking at many of the articles you've brought to RfUP, I don't think YM meant for the articles to be protected forever and until the end of time but, what it's easy to forget when you press the button, is that that's exactly what indef is unless someone with the capacity to get it unprotected stumbles across it. In many of these cases, protection for a week or a month (or even a year) would have been perfectly justified and I probably would have declined the unprotection requests. The trouble with indef is that 2 years on, we can't tell if the issue is still an issue and, with the protecting admin unfortunately inactive, we have very little information on which to base decisions on unprotection. Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts with someone! I might request a database report of indefinitely semi'd articles that have been protected for a very long time. I'm sure there'd be many articles where unprotection would be inconceivable, but I think there might be a few where unprotection or pending changes could be a realistic option.

On another note, I don't suppose you can make it to any of these? And, yet another digression, have you ever considered requesting your own mop? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes sense that they weren't intended to be forever, I think he got a bit left out from the community with his admin actions - as indef and unprotect used to be the way - and his supporters probably didn't realise either so it wasn't sorted sooner :(. Regardless its all water under the bridge now.

I think for now challenging them on RUP means that at least a couple of people take a look at them, which seems sensible - I wouldn't want to unprotect one of the ones which Nangparbat may have edited without a second opinion, but when you guys get bored I guess we should just put the rest (that don't look really obviously bad, like Vietnam) onto Pending Changes - I counted them up and there are about 200 left. I don't want to take it to ANI if I can help it as its not really fair.

I think usually the standard of indefinite semi-protections is pretty good - I did have a quick look through the first page or so of Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely semi-protected articles and most of them are pretty obvious, there's surprisingly few that looked worthy of unprotection - at least at first glance, maybe some of the long term vandals have moved on - its always difficult to see.

I do think Casliber's argument ages ago that indefinite protections are better than timed ones makes sense. The problem with timed protections is that the vandal knows when they are going to expire too, whereas if at some point between 1 and 3 years or whatever its much more difficult. It could make sense to switch all the indefinite protections to have a 5 year expiry or something - although it means that Anal sex will be vandalised a couple of times every 5 years, other stuff can get forgotten.

I'll also try and come along to a Wiki event sometime, and I might consider becoming an admin, I don't see a great rush to do so yet! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PS you can sort the indefinitely protected list by date, the earliest non-redirect is protected from 2007, which isn't that old. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

conventional wisdom when YM became an admin.

If my judgement is reflective of common practice, then I would say that indef semi is really quite rare. I see dozens of requests for it at RfPP every day, but they're only very rarely granted. I'd still be curious to see a list of articles that have been protected for more than a couple of years. There'll be the obvious cases (like anal sex!) where unprotection is never going to be sensible, but there might be some where the issues of 2007/8/9 aren't really issues in 2011. Some of the creeps from those days seem to have found hobbies or lives or something, though, of course, they've been replaced by plenty of new creeps. It would be good to have a review of every indef semi after a few years. I might raise something at the pump or AN when I have a moment.

Well, I'm sure you'd be most welcome at any event—Wikipedians are, in my (not vast) experience, very pleasant people in real life. If I understand their plans, WP:CONTRIB intend to hold events at lots of universities around the UK if these go well, so keep an eye out for something that pops up near you. As for adminship, I'm sure you'd do a great job, but as you say there's no rush. :::And thanks, I'll look at that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation and I have something to add. I would notify HJ Mitchell, but his talk page is protected and I have the impression that his alternative page is not watched. Eraserhead1, if you could ping him on this I would be grateful.

I was the person who made this proposal about one year ago, which, together with the ensuing discussion (including an eye-opening comment from YM), is very relevant to the above. However, it was unfortunately largely ignored.

I hope this YM incident will make the proposal more actual and understood.

As for "Casliber's argument ages ago that indefinite protections are better than timed ones", what are you referring to? I confess that I have a strong prejudice about anything Casliber may have said at the time, because he proved many times over:

1. Appalling lack of awareness of protection policy, abusing indefinite semis as a preventive measure against vandalism that never happened—see e.g. the case of John Laws (later escalated to AN/I) and his pretty hilarious and disastrous attempt at retrofitting policy to his past actions
2. Lack of understanding of protection policy and reluctance to admit having acted against it, even after his nose was duly rubbed against said policy (more evidence available on request)
3. His bad faith and prejudice against unregistered users (plenty of evidence to support this, too)

My understanding is that PC's trial has finished and further PCs should be granted very sparingly. Also, PC suffers from the same problem of indefinite protections, in that it gets forgotten. On this topic, I think it would make sense to introduce termed PCs (as opposed to automatically indefinite/infinite terms).

I think blanket-demoting the rest of YM's indef-semis to PC and call it even would be a mistake, not only for the issues with PC I just mentioned, but also because I am positive that there are still plenty of instances that can and will be unprotected on sight as soon as we get a chance to analyse and bring them to WP:RUP like Eraserhead1 and I did for so many cases during the last weekend. Personally, I am just getting started.

Finally, does the indefinite protection monitoring tool mentioned above take into account the fact that semiprotections used to be indefinite by default a few years ago (like PCs are now)? That might be the reason why that tool reports the earliest indefinite semi to have been granted in 2007, which I am sure is incorrect.

Sorry about the long post, and thanks for being sensitive about a topic I care a lot about. 113.197.209.20 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RUP Cleanup bot needs maintenance

Hello. See this for example. It keeps doing it. Can you please either fix or escalate? Thanks. 113.197.209.20 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)