User talk:Eraserhead1/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Hearing Impairment move

Hi, Eraserhead... I noticed you closed the discussion at Talk:Hearing impairment#Requested move as approving the move, but the move has not actually been performed. Was that an oversight, or am I just being impatient?  ;) Powers ^T 23:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You were just being impatient as I'm not an admin so I was waiting for the target page to be deleted, but it has now been done! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dukes of Viseu

Hi. I noticed you closed the RM on Talk:Infante Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu#Requested move. It was a move of multiple pages. I don't think there were objections on moving the second & third (John & Diogo, who were not infantes, their article titles are just plain error), just over the naming of the first (Ferdinand, who was an infante). I don't know if you concluded there was no consensus on the first, or no consensus on all three. Walrasiad (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's clear - its difficult to know what people think. If you think that latter two are uncontroversial make another move request for just those pages in a few weeks and notify the people involved this time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Google

I get 103 million hits for "anti-abortion" on google.co.uk. Still getting 18 million on google.com though. Can we get someone else to run the same searches to verify? It's likely some silly error on my end, but I'd like to be sure. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

All right, I tried the search on another computer and got 104 million, so I must have had some weird settings in effect on that computer. However, if you look at the search results for anti-abortion (without quotes), they include many websites (examples: [1], [2], [3]), which use the word "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion."

I think this is because a search without quotes includes synonyms, so I propose that we update the RFC page to use only searches with quotation marks. Here, "anti-abortion" gives 4.5 million results, while "pro-life" +abortion gives 25 million results. Similarly, "abortion-rights" gives 2.25 million results, while "pro-choice" +abortion gives 12 million results.

Are you okay with updating the RFC page with these new numbers? Please verify and make sure they are correct, there may be a problem with my safesearch settings or something. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll get back to you over the next couple of days. I need to think about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I am a bit concerned, both by this and by your reversion of my table ([4]). Please don't be offended, but I have alerted an administrator. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all :), I'll address your other issues later - you look to have a good point here - and I'm puzzled as to why the figures are so different. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My point of view on this is to remove all Google-related search results as it seems to vary and we do not want to include any unfactual information into the arguments. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the simplest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talkpage! (Also: It is saddening that despite is being vandalism that it's the only award I've ever gotten... *sniffle*. Excuse me; I have something in my eye....) Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A new editor

I try to refrain from getting involved more deeply in the Taiwan/China-related issues outside of what I'm already watching, but I noticed today that a new editor, User:A580666 (Special:Contributions/A580666) seems to be going around changing related articles to suit a particular POV without sourcing.⁺ As I've seen you frequently in related discussions, could you please check their contribs, revert what needs to be reverted and maybe talk to them (or find someone else who is also interested in maintaining related articles to do that)? Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

^{+ I actually don't completely disagree with that POV, but Wikipedia is the wrong place for that...}

I've reverted most of the edits, although I don't find any problems with A580666's edit to [[Chinese Singaporean]]. GotR ^Talk 03:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. wctaiwan (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess its sorted now? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is to me. Sorry for bothering you. wctaiwan (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WMUK

So we're both in the UK - will I possibly see you at the upcoming Wikimedia UK AGM in May? Deryck C. 21:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Slowing edition so that it can be checked

Hi Eraserhead1, you asked in the edit summary of 479561842 whether I could "do it slowly enough that the diffs can be checked plausibly". I am not sure what you mean by that. The changes I did today were extremely progressive and detailed, you should be able to check each change individually by using the "prev" links on [5]. See Help:Page history for information on using the page history.

If you were asking to make the changes even more gradually, please indicate which specific change(s) you would want to see decomposed. However, I'm afraid it's a little late to do that, in any case. --Chealer (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/I (mine, not yours!)

I see I'm on AN/I, yay. I've told the IP to use dispute resolution multiple times, but if you look at their contributions they're obviously here with a very strong Israeli POV, removing Palestine from tons of state lists even though they acknowledge it is recognised along 1967 lines. Ironically they added the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza to the List of world map changes without a source, even though per their 'world maps won't show it' argument it shouldn't be there. There's now a second meat/sock IP (well, I suspect so, given its limited contributions and apparent knowledge of policy), which is just more fun. Anyway, I'm going to end up ranting away. Since you commented, I thought I'd ask for a raincheck there, to decide if I'm doing things right or whether I'm troutable. I'd appreciate it if you did (although obviously there's no obligation!). CMD (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ROC challenge

I didn't see where you moved it - please just delete it. Thx Milkunderwood (talk)

I'm being kind of groggy - just woke up. Wherever mine is now, please just delete it. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It was in oppose, I've removed it. CMD (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:-) We are thoroughly confused, but it's okay. By "mine" I meant just my comment to Eraserhead1's challenge of Salix's Oppose, not my own Oppose. Sorry that I wasn't clear. But thanks anyway. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, sorry. We are confused. Eraserhead1 has struck it instead. Apologies, CMD (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Careful

You appear to have deleted this comment from the AfD about the upcoming Apple event. AniMate 08:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea how that happened :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's happened to me too, so no worries. AniMate 08:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey there :).

You're being contacted because you participated in a discussion that touched on (or was about) how Wikipedia treats new pages, new editors, and the people who deal with both - patrollers. I'm happy to say we've started work on New Page Triage, a suite of software that will replace Special:NewPages and hopefully make it a more pleasant experience for all. Please take a look, read about what we're planning to do, and add any notes on the talkpage, where some additional thoughts are already posted :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/I mention

Our Republic of China IP has mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#User:HiLo48. Nothing important though, but I thought notification would be appropriate for the sake of notification. CMD (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yay! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images#Finalizing_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FMuhammad_images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Apple media events

Hello, I see you have listed yourself as a participant at Wikiproject Computing Assessment, as being interested in evaluating computing-related articles. There is a discussion right now at Talk:Apple media events about the article Apple media events. The questions are: 1) Does the article Apple media events fall under Wikiproject Computing; and if so, 2) What Importance (Top, High, Mid, Low) should it be assigned? Your participation is appreciated! Thanks... Zad68 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of China

Can you please stop reverting at Talk:Republic of China. The idea is for no one to change the closed section. If there is a problem you can talk to one of us closing admins, but as it stands now we will have to check the history to see what revision it was when the discussion closed. And now page is locked against editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Graeme Bartlett

User talk:Graeme Bartlett asked me to stop reverting Talk:Republic of China just so you know: see: My talk. Cheers and good night! Jim1138 (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that and replied. Good night. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the state of the talk page now, only one real comment was added late, the rest of the changes were moving text around, or auto-signs. I have removed the late comment and relocated the section that I included in the close that was on another topic. This seems to be what half the edit war was about. Materialscientist has now offered to block any editors of the closed section. If the four of you involved in the edit war agree to stop altering the closed section I will unlock the talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the talk page protected to be perfectly honest, I really don't see the value in trying to reply to points in the discussion after it has finished (or to reply to those points and so on). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If editing in the closed section continues by the non-admins for any reason I will move it all to a protected page. People can keep talking outside but you are right it is pointless. The talk page as a whole should not stay protected, as there must be a place to talk. The page is now unlocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Eraserhead1/Archive 5: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Xavexgoem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Eraserhead1. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and reply over the weekend. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

PRC

I thought we discussed this before. There is no need to whitewash the article of mention of "PRC" where the word you are replacing it with is 2 or 4 letters longer. There is absolutely no ambiguity in using this acronym within this particular article, so doing so is for the most part unhelpful.

To answer your question, here is an example: "the U.S. did not switch official diplomatic recognition from the ROC to the PRC until 1 January 1979" would be more accurate than "the U.S. did not switch official diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China until 1 January 1979." The U.S. has had official diplomatic relations with "China" since the 19th Century and never broke them - the action that occurred in 1978/79 was a switch in recognition of a particular regime, the type that occurs when state succession occurs. By swapping the name of specific regimes with common names, you fail to capture the actual meaning of the sentence, or force your readers to infer the actual meaning by context. The benefits in doing this are negative.

Of course, you could write PRC and ROC out in full at the cost of concision, but I really don't see the point of doing so if they have already been introduced elsewhere in the same article.--Jiang (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There is still no point in using a relatively obscure acronym unless its really necessary, and I don't think in any of the places I changed it was it necessary. Of course in your example it is necessary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this acronym is obscure, and I'm sure I'm not in the minority to think this way. My example above referred to this sentence, which has since been removed: "In 1978, China normalized diplomatic relations with Japan, which became a significant foreign donor." --Jiang (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Try Googling it. The top hits for me are a company selling TV's, followed by a wikipedia article on the file format, followed by stuff on palm OS and so on. The only thing I can see using it on the front page of Google is a news piece from the Taipei Times. The Peterborough Regional College appears higher than any hit on China. In fact the first non-news hit I can see is for a search for the term on Twitter where PRC is used by Walter Lohman of the Heritage foundation.

As per WP:TECHNICAL we should avoid technical language where possible. China is a perfectly clear replacement in the comment on Japan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Googling 3-letter acronyms isn't going to get consistent results. Try "ABC" - not only do we get the American Broadcasting Company, we get Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., Another Bittorrent Client, Alcoholic Beverage Control, and ABC Distributing, with no mention of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Does this mean we should purge the 3-letter acronym ABC from all articles just because it could mean different things in different contexts?

Of course PRC should not be used without being introduced using the long form within the same article, but once it is used, I don't see how it can be confusing. It is being used commonly by reliable sources. This search shows every mention (I checked the first two pages) as referring to the People's Republic of China.

The poorly worded and factually dubious sentence about Japan is about the identical content - switching of diplomatic recognition - as in the other quote I introduced above. Japan had diplomatic relations with "China" before 1972 - just that it recognized the Taipei government as the government of China instead. In article text, as opposed to article titles, we have to ensure that whatever that is there is not merely unambiguous, but accurate.--Jiang (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I get the australian broadcasting company as the third result with a Google for ABC. But frankly its not entirely the point as in the case of ABC the Australian network there isn't another obvious, just as clear alternative to use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan sovereignty debate

Hi Eraserhead1. Let's talk about how to make the lead more neutral on the article's talk page. I've added a few comments there. Best.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated that you let me know here :) - I replied there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll continue the discussion there as well, but I did want to apologize for my lack of communication since I invited you to talk things through. I've been looking through various sources to make sure what I think I know is correct, which has been taking what time I can spare from real life.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

While if you want to I don't have an issue I'm not really clear on how much in depth research it is worth doing for the lead, which should be a short and reasonably brief summary. It is also by design going to involve some degree of simplification in order to produce a reasonable summary and it is highly unlikely that each sentence will be neutral on its own, all we can manage is to make it neutral overall. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings. (This invitation sent because you signed up as a member of WP:UWTEST) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet dispute

You obviously disagree with Pseudois, but that edit was not vandalism. Kanguole 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at his edit contributions coming across from another article where he blindly reverted some edits of mine that were mostly cleanup. Then from an initial look at South Tibet dispute it looked like a straight blanking without an appropriate justification.

Given that doesn't appear to be the case I have reverted my initial edit and provided an improved edit summary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kanguole 21:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for my initial mistake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

May I say something here?

1. Your edits I reverted at [6] were not "mostly cleanup", but were a strong personal POV pushing from your side not reflected by any consensus on the talk page.

2. My reversion wasn't a blind revert. I carefully read all arguments exposed on the talk page, and couldn't find relevant well-sourced references supporting your edits. To the opposite, Wikimedes edits were well referenced and appeared relevant to the topic.

3. It would save time for all editors if you would use the talk page first before doing hasty reverts such as here, [7] and here. My edits on these three articles ([8], here and here) had a clear summary with direct internal link provided to the talk page where the discussion took place.

4. Before accusing someone of "vandalism", "blind reversion" and "poor behaviour", I would suggest you to be a bit more careful, as such personal attacks do not belong to Wikipedia.

5. Wikipedia is not a battleground, it is an encyclopaedic project. I thank you for remaining civil in future discussions.--Pseudois (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry the edits I originally made were most minor stylistic improvements and out of my 10 changes only about two were anything more than stylistic - the one removing the debate over de-jure sovereignty and adding a statement from the Dalai Lamas own website about his position. Unless you are arguing that I am pushing a pro-Tibetan independence POV I cannot fathom a POV issue with quoting the Dalai Lama's exact position and using his exact wording.

All in all if the only change you actually had an issue with was the comment about de-jure sovereignty then you should have just removed that and left the rest of my changes alone. If you had done that I wouldn't have accused you of blind reversion and I wouldn't have misunderstood your edits to South Tibet dispute.

I also initially left a friendly message on your talk page which your edits this morning appeared to ignore. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Pseudois has said about the Tibetan Sovereignty Debate and behavior pertaining theretoo (I am unfamiliar with the South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh dispute). I have also had problems with Eraserhead1's behavior towards other editors (incl. IPs) with regards to the Tibetan sovereignty debate. However, since the article is progressing in spite of (and sometimes because of) this behavior, I will limit my comments on behavior to this post if possible.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1: "Initially"? Hum, your edit record shows that you have made a total of 9 edits before leaving me that "friendly" message on my talk page. Actually, you only did it after another editor raised some concerns regarding your accusation of vandalism, and you found time to further dissert about my alleged "blind reversions" right before sending me your "friendly" note. That doesn't sound particularly friendly to me, and yes, I think the best way is to ignore such sterile disputes. WP is not a forum or a place for name calling. Anyway, I am happy to see that you have self-moderated your tone in your latest replyPseudois (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What I wanted you to do was to start engaging on the talk page, which you have started to do, rather than merely reverting my changes without any kind of explanation which you were doing before. And you still seem to be failing to accept that it isn't a good way to behave constructively. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling. KarlB (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

ipad

Nice work cleaning up the iPad article. If you have the time/inclination there are some really crappy references at Samsung Galaxy S III. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is bloody tedious checking links but I'm trying to get iPad to FA, so that's why I've been looking at it :). I'll have a quick look at Samsung Galaxy S if I can. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Al-Karaouine

You are invited to take part in a discussion which aims at achieving a final stable version in a spirit of cooperation and consensus. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked user Thmc1....

Hi! Remember blocked user Thmc1? I am writing to inform you that he's back on WP using various IPs and accounts as socks. I have recently opened an investigation, and ask that you check out the evidence and give any support possible, such as posting extra comments and/or additional evidence. It's definitely him. All IPs and accounts I've traced back to the Fair Lawn area in Bergen County of NE New Jersey, the same area that Thmc1's blocked IPs are, and the place where he has edited about on WP.
He's still up to the old tricks, making the same vandalous pro-NYC edits dis-crediting other cities and communities. The history log of all IPs and accounts were created after he was blocked. In the case of one account, it was created the day after he was blocked- nearly 100% of the articles editd from that account were also edited by Thmc1. Would appreciate any help you can offer. The link to the investigation page is [9]. Thanks, MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I vaguely remember but I think I only interacted with him on London. I'm away at the moment so I'm also not got much time to be active. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he still had the nerve to make vandalous edits to the "Caput Mundi" article after being blocked (using IP 96.242.217.91), relegating London below New York as a world capital. I've included evidence for that, as well. Anyways, if you have time I'd really appreciate if you, or anyone else from the London pages (please spread the word!) could post a line or 2 in my support on the investigation page.[10] Thanks!, MBaxter1 (talk)

Oldest universities

Hello. You have shown in the past an interest in the subject of the oldest universities. I am therefore notifying you of an ongoing discussion concerning the topic here. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, much appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, too. I will reply tomorrow on the noticeboard. But before I would like to point out to you that mentioning of the madrasa claim, albeit still provisional, is already included both in university and medieval university. If we are going to include these centres in yet another article on the university, this may seem like WP:undue weight, considering that other ancient institutions of higher learning are also occasionally referred to as universities, but don't get this 'special treatment'. So I don't quite see yet why we should favour the madrasas consistently over these, but it is good to see that you bring a civil tone back to what is undoubtedly a tedious discussion. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't give Madrasas special treatment, but certainly the status quo isn't enough - you could try option 2 - I think it is my preferred option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed half a dozen reliable sources without adequate discussion. I will restore them. You argue that madrasas should be included into list of universities, yet you object to slight references to universities in articles on madrasas. I don't consider this a balanced approach; when we discuss one institution we also need to refer to the other where necessary. In this case, the view that the earliest universities emerged in Europe is relevant to the topic because they directly contradict the claim that the earliest university is in Morocco. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gun, we don't need to rehash the entire debate on the al karaouine article - before it was totally excessive. It merely needs a summary.

The content I kept still makes it clear that the view that it isn't a university is the mainstream opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should Al-Karaouine not be the most adequate place to discuss whether medieval Al-Karaouine is to be considered a university or madrasa? However, I agree about cutting back KBs on this, therefore I have removed citations related to the oldest universities in Europe. I would also favour moving the lead into the subsection name usage in order to avoid duplication. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead isn't. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say your edits were heavy-handed, but I did my best to accept most of it. The ball is now in your field to be part of the problem or the solution. Now please not yet another debate. I am asking you for a deeper understanding that you too need to make compromises. I don't think you are the type of editor who only accepts his own final version, or at least I hope so. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Many of the changes I made today were utterly, utterly uncontroversial, e.g. removing the endless transliterations, adding references, and making general improvements to the content.

I cannot fathom as to why you thought they needed blanket reversion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: You have been editing all day the article and you don't allow me to make a single edit? I'd say now it is your turn to readd your good contents because you blocked effectively the whole page for editing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When you blanket remove obviously uncontroversial changes why should I let them stand. If you weren't quite so keen to revert immediately you would notice that I actually did keep the content you added today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that you effectively block a page when you constantly change it? I mean we are not talking about 5 but 30 or so edits. It is procedural. Feel free to add your stuff to my version, but I don't want to rewrite my version for a third time because this is what I today already did today once for you, so fast was the page changing. Now it is your turn to be considerate of me. Your last changes are comparatively minor to mine. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONFLICT states "Bob should not just post his changes over the top of Alice's." which is exactly what you did.

Making lots of small changes means I can easily explain each and every one, you could have done so as well.

There was absolutely no way of knowing that you wanted to edit the article as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have re-instated my edit but with your new University section which I presume was the only change you actually wanted to make. Yes your edit was larger in one sense, but it was also entirely concentrated in one section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The university section was actually only part of it, I edited heavily all sections. I find this all a bit childish for adult people. Tomorrow I will greatly restrain myself not to look at your edit with the same slackness you have been looking on mine. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In which case you should have done it as multiple edits.

Each edit should be one idea, and each one should be kept as simple as possible so it can be looked at by other editors. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have to make a big edit then maybe you should use the Template:Under construction ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The other good tip is if you are making changes at the same time as someone else is to add a single line break before and after the section you wish to edit first, then save that and then make your change. Html detects single line breaks as normal spaces so they don't appear to be anything special but they do make life much easier for the differ which works on a line-by-line basis, and they make edit conflicts much less likely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you want to have the last word as in the previous discussion on the list where I let you have your way just say so. I will adapt to it. Your rehashing and rewording and removing my contents just keeps the issue alive when nobody is not really interested anymore in arguing over it. I mean a compromise is when both parties feel (slightly) unhappy about the final result. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Gun, I have no idea what you are talking about. Your changes have by and large been kept apart from when they don't make sense or they violate WP:NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, let us discuss the remaining issues reasonably.
• I don't understand why you cite Lulat, Park, Belhachmi along a dichotomy of private and state university, when in fact these authors draw the line between madrasa and university and speak of a transformation of the former to the latter
• I don't know why you removed the fact that AK was called officially only from 1963 from the status section. Why should this not be relevant?
• I don't know what you mean with "Before World War II al-Karaouine's status was disputed...". There is no such watershed marked by WWII.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• • With regards to the first point I'm presuming you can manage to show a bit of sensibleness about it, it is just like your argument about it being a madrasa unambiguously from the point of its founding, the sources which call it a University don't generally explicitly call it a madrasa as well - we are merely using a little common sense.
  • With regards to the second point when you bundle a huge number of changes that contain a decent number of negative changes in a massive diff then other changes that are good are likely to be missed. I did make a good faith effort to re-add the good content from your change, but unfortunately I made a mistake and I am sorry about that. I have now re-added the content to the article.
  • There is, some changes to its status clearly occurred in 1947. World War 2 merely seemed to be a sensible cut off point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Being sensible is citing what these sources actually say, not what you want them to say. All three sources agree that in 1963 the "madrasa" was transformed to a "university". None speak of "private universities" or "public universities". This dichotomy simply plays no role here and is never mentioned by any of these scholars. And, in fact, it also makes no sense here, because - as Lulat says in the section university - Al-Karaouine has been serving for centuries as a recruitment place for the sultan's state administration. This means it was a kind of state institution long before the 20th century, and did not suddenly become one after WW II.

I am aware you want to reconcile the conflicting positions as much as you can, and you may think that calling AK by the more limited term "state university" may be a good way to accomodate these three sources with the others who speak of a "university" from the beginning, but we just cannot achieve this by misrepresenting sources to make them fit with others. What you are trying to do is aligning the set of sources which date the creation of the university to 1963 (set 1963) to those which speak loosely of a "university" from the outset (set 859). Why not the other way? I have written many times that the real problem, the true core problem of the entire discussion, is the casual way how many authors refer to many ancient educational institutions (Greek, Muslim, Roman, Chinese etc.) as "university" simply on the grounds that these were centers of higher learning. And the loose terminology is the reason why the contradiction between the two sets of opinions is much more apparent than real. If you want to make the narrative in the WP article consistent, put "university" into brackets when citing the set 859. However, I know you and some others don't want none of this. Fine, but please don't make 'my' set 1963 fit 'your' set 859. Wikipedia:Reliable commits us to cite the set 1963 exactly the way it is meant and I comply with this, irrespective of the friction it may cause with other sources.

2. Fine, thanks. Same mistake happened to me with your changes to the format of the quotes. Will respect this from now on.

3. Looks like we had a misunderstanding, because I happen to agree absolutely: there were some major changes to Al-Karaouine's status after WW II (1947-1963). But your line "Before World War II al-Karaouine's status was disputed..." rather claims that around this time there was some change to the nature of the discussion about the status. This is a very different assertion. There was no sudden shift of opinion in the literature, therefore we have to reword the introducing sentence to make it refer to the changing status. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I wanted to take a short break to gain a bit of perspective.

With regards to the first point I think it is probably fair to say that the educational institution wasn't rigidly founded in 859, and that describing the founding date as that of the mosque is probably reasonable.

With regards to "State University" I think it is needed to comply with NPOV, it is also explicitly backed up by Belhachmi with "Morocco transformed Al-Qarawiyin (859 A.D.) into a university under the supervision of the ministry of education in 1963". If you disagree really the way forward is to take it to the NPOV noticeboard with a separate discussion thread - it is a narrow problem so it should be easy to resolve. I would suggest waiting until the current (very long) discussion is archived, but in the meantime feel free to change it and add an NPOV tag to the top of the article, or not change it and add an appropriate tag. I am perfectly happy to go with whatever they say.

With regards to author confusion I think that is because the difference isn't that great and that in the authors opinion the institutions are "the same" - we have to take that viewpoint into account. The difference between European Universities and Madrasas until the late 18th century seems to be minimal.

With regards to the third point I've borrowed some of your wording and hopefully clarified it. Feel free to make any further changes to it as you wish if it isn't clear enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:China-header

Template:China-header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It isn't needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited University of al-Karaouine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The West and Institution of higher learning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks

i want to thank you for finding this edit. i have removed the fringe content.-- altetendekrabbe  19:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth N-HH bought it up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner. Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GPM

For info, following recent discussion on my talk page. N-HH talk/edits 11:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this - I have been busy and not had access to my email. Looks like RFC/U is where it needs to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC

If you remove a section from this page, than please archive it too. Thanks. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I will go back and sort that out. Do they get archived automatically? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, manually. And I already sorted out the previous ones. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for sorting out the previous ones. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure of ':Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights'

You closed this CfD, and I wanted to make sure you are aware that the nominator added a second category in the nomination. Namely :Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric

Since there is a tag on the category page, I wanted to make sure that was also included in the decision to keep, before removing the tag. Many thanks – MrX 19:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the further comments really refer to that one, the case to delete it is much stronger as the category is basically empty. I would say that you can remove the tag as "no consensus" and if that category is to be deleted a second request can be started. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Closing a CfD discussion. Thank you. —StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

Hi Eraserhead, I wanted to let you know I've also volunteered to assess consensus for the Monty Hall problem article. Moving forward, I wanted to know if you wanted to coordinate our communications about this content dispute over e-mail or otherwise, and also if we wanted to set up some dates to judge and deliberate consensus. I should also let you know that I do not have a background in mathematics; I don't think closing of RfC's should generally require a particular background knowledge, but since this one is a special case, I wondered if perhaps I might not be suited for assessing consensus. Let me know what you think. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have some background knowledge of mathematics and I have heard of the problem (but not the name), but I don't think it is essential. To be honest while it may have been to Arbcom I doubt there has actually been significantly more discussion than there was about China - so I think we can make progress. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. It looks like we have our three now. I've made a space on my user page here where we can centralize discussion. I think e-mail will be too cumbersome. I'm not sure how long this will take exactly, but please take your time in reviewing and feel free to make several comments on your own and others' sections as we progress along. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

rfa

Per [11], are you interested in Rfa? Nobody Ent 03:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but I've been pretty busy since then :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Supervote

You just did a complete supervote at: Talk:Reincarnation_research#Merge_proposal. You've put in your own judgement of the situation rather than weighing up what we, the other editors have decided. You mixed that in with pure vote counting. If you are going to supervote, you should at least look at the low quality sources which were added to beef up the article to make it look more varied [12]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it to AN to request an uninvolved admin close (as was originally requested). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked your close, I don't see a problem with it, contrary to what IRWolfie is saying. As a close isn't a vote count the weight of the argument needs to be considered, and in the end, it looks to me like that's just what you did, weigh the argument.

Good job.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

About closure of discussion in "Talk:Reincarnation research"

You have closed the discussion in Talk:Reincarnation research ([13]) and I'm afraid that you did one small mistake there. You wrote: "Since 23 August, when the article started to improve, of the three people to comment one is in support of the merge, and two are against, which is substantially different from the overall numbers for the whole RFC (10 in support vs 6 against).". That would be correct if you added a word "new" before "people", but is wrong as it stands for some of the users who did participate in the discussion until that point did comment after 23 August (and, by the way, it doesn't look like any of them changed their mind). For example, there was a whole section Talk:Reincarnation research/Archive 4#Recent article expansion about that. So, maybe you would like to correct your rationale..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Only you and EPadmirateur commented again on the content after the 23 August, so that would still be 2 in support vs 3 against, which is still a huge swing.

Regardless there is still the fact that the article has improved hugely since the 23 August - so the best thing to do is to hold another fresh discussion - perhaps after a month or so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I have clarified the rationale. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion I have cited had more participants: "Johnfos" (opposed merge), "Saddhiyama" (supported merge), "LuckyLouie" (supported merge), "IRWolfie-" (supported merge), "Martynas Patasius" (me; supported merge). And it has been started on the 24th of August, that is, after the 23rd. In short, it's not just the "RFC" section itself that counts. There are more users that have indicated that they have seen the changes and had the opportunity to change their statements. Thus, if we add those participants, we have 6 supporters out of 10 and 4 opposers out of 6 (I think?) that didn't change their opinion (and 0 that did). That's quite a sample... Although, of course, what has been done, has been done. If the discussion will have to be repeated, I guess it will have to be repeated... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The others only discussed the canvassing issue, so it isn't clear what their view on the rest of the merge is at that point. Asking them explicitly or expecting them to change their minds explicitly would cause them to lose face if they had changed their minds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What you don't do, as the closer, is decide that because they commented early you can just throw their opinions out. There was no consensus that the article was improved, you decided that. It doesn't matter a bit that I didn't "me too" with Martynas, it's not a vote count. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the article has improved significantly since those individuals commented. Their points don't address the current article, which has clearly significantly improved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article hasn't significantly improved because the sourcing is rubbish. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't seriously expect the sourcing to be FA level. Given the article's status the sourcing looks fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The "others" are who? The ones I mentioned specifically commented about the changes made to the article. And, of course, I hope that the Wikipedians do not care about "losing face" that much, but that's just a hope... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The "others" are the other people who didn't re-comment on the topic at hand after the 23 August and merely commented on canvassing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please list the usernames? I am still not entirely sure if you mean everyone except 6 supporters and 4 opposers that I mentioned, or everyone except 2 supporters and 3 opposers that you mentioned? In the first case all this talk about "the massive swing in opinion" ([14]) looks strange (even in case of vote count - 6 out of 10 is not that different from 10 out of 16)... But in the second case the "vote count" is just wrong, for the discussion I have mentioned is specifically about the "improvements" of the article and not about canvassing. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you thought it was unclear, you would have worded that differently (I have no doubt that you are not trying to be unclear on purpose). But, unfortunately, it is still unclear to me (maybe because English is not my native language)... And simply listing the usernames would be the easiest way to make things clear. Yet, if you feel that it would be too much work, tell me the count and I'll try to find out the answer again. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The others are those who only posted in the canvassing section, or the copyright violations/awaiting admin close sections. To be perfectly honest given that people so rarely explicitly change their minds, I'm not sure that counting the existing participants again is particularly valuable - but if you wanted to, the only ones you would count are you and EPadmirateur, as you are the only ones who addressed the subject of the merge discussion again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And do you count the ones in Talk:Reincarnation research/Archive 4#Recent article expansion? That's what I'm asking about. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, and I understand why you are frustrated by this - and certainly it is reasonable for you to have bought up these issues here. However I'm not going to take it into account for several reasons.

• I doubt it would make a significant material difference to the closure as that discussion happened right at the start of the improvement process, all it really shows is that the concerns persisted after the 23 August, not that they necessarily still persist in the current article.
• It isn't clearly part of the discussion, and therefore other editors might not respond to points that they would respond to if they were part of the merge request discussion making it hard to judge consensus on such content.
• It opens a pandora's box of other content that post-decision a closer is expected to read - this increases significantly the amount of work one has to do on a given close, and it opens the possibility for a lengthly series of appeals as one side and then the other brings up some other discussion thread which benefits their side.
• Closing discussions isn't easy at the best of times so we certainly need to have a coherently communicated section to close. If the discussion becomes too complex it strongly risks having to be closed as no-consensus or a closure never takes place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

With regards to your overall concerns I would suggest proposing a move request - I think the current title isn't particularly ideal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know we finally understood each other. Actually, I suspect that you wouldn't have missed that discussion if it hadn't been archived recently (a little too soon, I'd say). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Vote counts

RfC's aren't vote counts. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't vote count. The vote count is merely used to point out the massive swing in opinion after the 23 August.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You just did it again. You are counting numbers. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we agree to disagree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack/Br'er Discussion on WP:AN

No worries, I understand why you asked and it's cool. No hard feelings harbored on my end and no offense taken. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think you forgot to respond to at least two oppose-votes in that discussion. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The points I responded to needed refuting, sorry.
  • I'm perfectly entitled to make multiple replies in a discussion - and I didn't make an excessive number of replies to any individual. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are entitled to do so. It just looks like badgering. I still don't understand what you were trying to tell me, but I guess it's all hypothetical now. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you mean the point about many admins being unable to effectively handle WP:ADMIN challenges? I'm certainly not going to provide any further evidence for it, as it would be terribly unfair to the individuals concerned, but it should be pretty obvious - especially if you follow any discussions in controversial areas of the project - that this occurs to at least some degree.
      • With regards to complaints about badgering, well you seem to feel that being called a "fucking asshole" is something that admins should just be able to deal with, so I'm not really clear on how engaging in discussion readily can possibly be worth mentioning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
        • A late clarification to the first statement - admins clearly agree to follow WP:ADMIN when they sign up - if they find that hard, how are they going to manage to follow other, more difficult and non-required behaviour as a matter of course? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I cannot thank you enough for closing the discussion on recent deaths on the main page. You have (hopefully) brought an end to one of the longest running debates at ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Along with a minnow

Have no opinion on the close, but not a good idea to execute it on an archive page [15]. Next time manually unarchive it and then close it, okay? See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hot_Stop Nobody Ent 21:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

MHP

Re: "I'm not sure how much over-thinking and dispute resolving we want to do",[16] I am hoping for a lot. (smile) This dispute has gone on for ten years and 1.3 million talk page words, and I have been attempting to resolve it for nearly two years. I really don't want this RfC to end with Rick and Martin still fighting and still both claiming that the consensus supports their version. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed ITN discussion

Hello. Would you consider undoing your close of this discussion? I think you may have misinterpreted it - none of the discussion concerned the closing of the recent RFC. It was a discussion on how the new ticker will affect the nomination process on WP:ITN/C. Or at least that's what I got out of it. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately while it was mainly about that it was also about re-hashing the same discussion that we had already had. While re-reading the discussion this evening I get your point, given the opening comment there is certainly a strong risk of it deviating significantly into re-discussing the existence of the recent deaths section.

I think it would be much better to open a new thread that is explicitly only about the nomination process. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Monty Hall RfC

Y Done and done with my close. There are a bunch of archives for this section on the talk page-- I would "close out" the whole thing, but I'm not sure what the most appropriate way to archive this large of a discussion would be. I was thinking of doing just as {{archivetop}} {{archivebottom}}, but maybe hatting the closes might also be appropriate? What do you think? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! The thread should just auto-archive so I wouldn't worry about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK rules change

I have reverted your change to the DYK rules pending discussion of your closures of the two RfCs on the issue of including GAs in the DYK section. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is where? I don't think this seriously counts as a notification of anything, and you seem to have made no explanation whatsoever as to why you unilaterally reverted my closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on WT:DYK, before and after I reverted you. There was some scattering of comments on that page, so you may want to look at the sequence of my edits. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And you've still failed to adequately address either of the two points I requested in the previous point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you still think I reverted your closure of the actual RfC on the DYK page? If so, please look again at what I said here - and at the RfC, which no one has touched since you closed it. As to the objections raised during the RfC, see the Did You Know talk page, both now and in earlier sections. Discussion is ongoing and since I made my point of view clear in the RfC itself, I won't presume to summarise what others have said. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to some stuff on WT:DYK that I have found in the GA in DYK section, but most of the comments seem to violate either policy or common sense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid what I am seeing is that you did not inform yourself. Apparently it did not occur to you that this was a controversial RfC. But I don't appreciate either the imprecations at the outset or the insults now. If you're thinking on a basis of what you consider common sense, perhaps you were not neutral enough to close this particular debate? Please, if you haven't done so already, have a look at the discussion both in and around the DYK RfC. I suspect you oversimplified the issues; that's suggested by your seeing the implementation as trivial. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to get the closure reviewed, as I have said before, you are more than welcome to ask for a triumvirate to review the closure, and I am more than happy to abide by the result of such a review whatever the outcome. With regards to content outside the RFC, as I have always done before I'm not going to take it into account with regards to the closure, maybe if you ask for the decision to be reviewed the reviewers will feel differently, but that is up to them. Additionally I certainly feel I have acted neutrally, however if you have evidence that I haven't treated the closure neutrally that is certainly grounds for a review of the closure and you are more than welcome to present such evidence to the reviewers, if you ask for the decision to be reviewed.

With regards to threatening to escalate the behavioural issues, certainly threatening either implicitly or explicitly not to follow a community consensus is a behavioural issue and should be treated as such. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe you've made a mistake in interpreting consensus, in which light the situation appears very different. I've tried to point this out to you; whether I continue to participate in Did You Know is, frankly, not a matter of rules and regulations. If you're referring to what others have said there, then I believe you should be talking there. But it won't help matters if you continue to ignore large parts of the discussion. Please don't think of polite disinclination to disrupt a formal process as pettiness., especially when you're also talking about over-bureaucratisation :-) I'm leaving the question of how to get this revisited to people more informed in this part of the bureaucracy :-) --Yngvadottir (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't believe there is a formal process to get these decisions revisited. However that also gives the closer the latitude to invent their own review process. If you ask for a triumvirate to review the decision at WP:AN and you can get one that is willing to look again, then I will be more than happy to abide by the result.

The other side of the coin from my complaints about people complaining about the decision is that there is no real way to sensibly get the decision reviewed - and I certainly want to allow productive review of closure decisions to be possible - as we all make mistakes from time to time.

Furthermore if I am wrong and there is a formal channel to get the decision reviewed, feel free to use that instead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've posted a review request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Disputed closure of RfC on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Playing Whac-A-Mole at Monty Hall problem

Hi! I am hoping that dealing with this won't become a full time job, but Rick and Martin are still engaging in their dispute:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Problem statement

I purposely had Rick and Martin write the RfC and agree on the wording just so that neither could later say that the RfC did not properly represent their position (see User_talk:Guy Macon#On the Question of Whether the RfC was Altered to see how that one is coming along), and I was quite clear in asking them to both confirm that the RfC covered all areas of dispute.

Looking at the big picture, I would very much like to help Martin and Rick to resolve their dispute so I can work with the other editors to reach consensus on any secondary disputes. I don't want to be coming back to you three forever as I play Whac-A-Mole with new aspects of the dispute. Do you have any suggestions as to what my next dispute resolution step should be if this content dispute continues? Alas, Wikipedia:Binding content discussions never took off and this has already been to MedCom and ArbCom.

(Sent to all three closers.) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll send you an email. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I don't think I need to send an email - I think you should just let them discuss it - the discussion looks OK at the moment.

If they still can't get on without lots of outside help then you should be able to treat it as a conduct issue and let Arbcom sort it out. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Email

I have no interest in continuing to waste my time on that ANI discussion when its obvious that the participants are more interested in Rich being blocked than in edits getting done. I want and need to retire from this place. As I stated in the Email, I still strongly believe in the project but the atmosphere here is toxic. All I care about is making sure editing gets done and making sure policy is followed...consistency. But too many admins and editors just want to see how much they can destroy (and yes I relieve believe that is their goal) and pick and choose when and which policy's to follow and on whom. I no longer have any respect for the majority of admins, the process of Arbcom and I do not believe Wikipedia is revivable at this point unfortunately and I anticipate the site being near death by this time next year. Anyway. I sent you more details via Email on the ANI discussion. Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've received the email and I'll reply later. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Whee

And there was much rejoicing. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		For your dedicated contributions to WP:RFC/AAMC, I hereby award you the Barnstar of Liberty. They said we couldn't do it; we now see that they talk a lot of nonsense. Thanks for sticking with it! —chaos5023 (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

ITN talk

Ah, I see, sorry for reverting then. --Tone 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem :). I didn't leave an edit summary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you moved it back, are you going to close that discussion today? Remember that if you wait too long, User:MiszaBot II may automatically move it back into the archives again because the last comment was dated back in September. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I intend to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Will be done in the next day or so". That doesn't sound like intended to get it done today. Also, I don't know how long it could possibly take to type "no consensus". -- tariqabjotu 22:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to close it as no consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you made a reasonable closure, let's see how it works out in practice. --Tone 22:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So that means Barack Obama's gone... -- tariqabjotu 23:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Such is life, as we don't get legal to check each time we put something up, we have to be legally cautious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Help talk:Archiving a talk page

Closing an RFC "Based on that I think we should deprecate the other methods". is not the right way to do it. Next to no people took part in this RFC and the opinions were not as clear cut as your closing implies. As an opinion in an RFC your comments would be understandable. But as a close it is not, as what you should have done is way up the opinions expressed and presented that as a neutral close. -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to close it at WP:AN so I closed it. As per WP:CONSENSUS I'm required to weigh up the various arguments that were presented - which is exactly what I did.

The project has lost a lot of editors, so far fewer people are commenting in discussions and far fewer people are willing to close them than in the past, so you aren't going to get the depth of discussion you would have previously got. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead1. I've reviewed the discussion and find PBS's comment that your close is not the best assessment of the consensus.

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) supported deprecation of both methods.

Graham87 (talk · contribs) had the nuanced opinion that "Perhaps discussion of these less popular methods can be relegated to a subpage and the main page could just contain a summary of them."

John of Reading (talk · contribs) wrote, "Whether or not these extra methods are formally deprecated, I would like to the page kept as simple as possible and directed at new users."

Quiddity (talk · contribs) wrote, "Support clarification of the most common/popular/recommended method (cut&paste), and support de-emphasis of the other methods."

Wnt (talk · contribs) wrote, "I think I should oppose "deprecating" these methods entirely - they work, and there's no obvious reason to prefer the most common method in general."

PBS (talk · contribs) opposed deprecation, writing "there is no harm in pointing out the alternatives here so that a person who is not aware of the other method and process is available for use".

One editor—Beeblebrox—supported deprecation and two editors—Wnt and PBS—explicitly opposed it, while three editors—Graham87, John of Reading, and Quiddity—supported simplification of the guideline and expressed no opinion on deprecation.

I don't see a consensus for deprecation but a consensus to simplify the page to emphasize the most common archiving method. Whether this is through (i) outright removal as suggested by Beeblebrox, (ii) relegation to a subpage as suggested by Graham87, or (iii) a rewrite as suggested by Quiddity was not established in the discussion.

Would you modify your close to "consensus to simplify the page, but how to simplify it will need to be subject to further discussion about the three options suggested here"?

I think you correctly found the consensus to be that simplification was needed but the deprecation of the other two methods by outright removal wasn't based on the discussion's consensus.

Disclosure: I use the page-move archiving method. While it's less common than the cut and paste method, it is in use by a nontrivial number of users. 28bytes (talk · contribs) and Armbrust (talk · contribs) also use the page-move archiving method. I personally agree with simplifying the page to de-emphasize the less common methods. However, I find outright removal to be unhelpful as if I or 28bytes or Armburst are asked why we use the page-move archiving method, we are unable to point to a page that documents its process and its merits.

Cunard (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you make an excellent and very clear point. I'll take a look at redoing the close over the next few days.

My feeling is that your concerns have largely been taken into account in the current version of the page - which is better than my version IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out Graham87's revisions, which I hadn't noticed. This addresses my concerns about documentation of the page-move archiving method's process and its merits. When you review your close, please consider not declaring the methods as "deprecated". Help:Archiving a talk page's text as revised by Graham87 states:

These procedures were once considered equal options with the procedure described above. Over time both methods fell out of use and should be considered deprecated. They should not be used for any new archives, with the exception of user talk pages wherein the user has an established history of using one of these methods.

I find the "[t]hey should not be used for any new archives" part problematic. If new users wish to use these methods, they should be allowed to do so. I think Graham87's wording is based on your close of "consensus to deprecate" so if this were to be revised perhaps to "consensus de-emphasize the lesser used methods (though they can still be used)", this will satisfy all my concerns.

Thank you for your numerous thoughtful RfC closes. Best, Cunard (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"I'll take a look at redoing the close over the next few days." please do so as soon as your schedule allows. -- PBS (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• • I will try and look at it within the next 24 hours (and if not it will be my next edit), but lets be clear that the close isn't going to change that much - Cunard hasn't requested a particularly big change. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Review done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, the page will be much less confusing now for new users. But to give credit where credit is due, I simply worked from this revision of the page by Beeblebrox. Graham87 03:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Simplifying signatures

In your close, you wrote, "I think there is a consensus in favour of 1, 3 and 4, with 2, 5, 6 and 7 having no consensus." Would you clarify your close by explicitly stating: There is a consensus to prohibit "Adding or removing wikilinks related to user's activity", or there is a consensus to allow "Adding or removing wikilinks related to user's activity"?

It was difficult for me to determine whether the close was to prohibit or disallow options 1, 3, and 4, so a clarification would remove any ambiguity from the close. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on close rationale

Here you closed a discussion as "consensus in favour". I'd like to know how you arrived at that conclusion. A quick check shows that there are 2-4 people who supported the proposal: PBS, who proposed it, Churn and Change, and maybe a few lukewarm supports. No one else who commented had any overt support for the proposal. Could you please elaborate the difference between your closure of this discussion and Wikipedia:Supervote. I know that discussions are not a vote, but your closure rationale should include some connection to the preponderance of opinions in the discussion, and not merely two among several dozen. Your closure seems incongruous based on the totality of the discussion. --Jayron32 01:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Check that: Even "Churn and Change" opposed the use of court judgements. A quick check of the number of supporting positions is:

• Unambiguous supports: PBS (proposer), WhatamIdoing
• Support "general idea" or "Leaning support": TBOTNL, Gigs
• Oppose: Jmajeremy, Sionk, Collect, Jayron32, Churn and Change, Aprock, Joe decker, Arthur Rubin.

I understand there is no minimum number of votes for "consensus", but this does not appear to be even close to consensus. Even the most generous counting gives 4 supporting votes (two of which are lukewarm) to 8 opposes. That's not what consensus looks like. --Jayron32 01:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

PBS made an impassioned argument that follows our standard way of doing things and which follows the spirit of the overall policy - which is to prevent Wikipedia and its editors being sued for libel. You guys said no.

The only argument that wasn't completely rubbish was the idea that the media is a filter, but that was refuted as even the best media in the world isn't really as neutral as an international court, and certainly the opposition media in (for example) Romania could be vastly more amateur. With regards to English language sources at home well certainly in Britain (except for the Economist) international topics don't attract much coverage, and I don't imagine anywhere else is significantly better.

All in all in that area the opposers showed a total naivety to how international topics are covered by the media - and that was the best argument you guys presented.

While obviously we have to be legally cautious the idea that you would be able to successfully sue Wikipedia or its editors for libel because we quoted an international court ruling is really rather absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead, it seems clear that there was a consensus not to change the policy in the direction suggested, which I suspect is why the proposer didn't go ahead and make the change. I understand that you disagree with the opponents, but in closing an RfC we're meant to reflect consensus, not add a "supervote". Would you mind reconsidering your close? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If I'm to reconsider the decision then the opposition need to present some sort of argument that has a figleaf of sense to it. It is the sort of senseless nonsense that one would normally discounted when closing discussions.

I'm well aware of the numbers, so if someone can come along here and present some vaguely coherent argument in favour of the previous position I'm happy to reconsider, but frankly I think it was the right close as I haven't seen any vaguely coherent arguments in favour of the previous position.

With regards to just going ahead - well I wouldn't expect the proposer to do so until the discussion was closed by a neutral third party - that's how WP:CONSENSUS works. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:AN. You know what to do. --Jayron32 20:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Eraserhead, it seemed so obvious that the proposal wasn't going to be accepted, I didn't even register an oppose. And it was archived without objection from the proposer, so he presumably saw it as a failed proposal too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Stuff isn't getting closed very quickly these days - there's a massive backlog. Plenty of stuff gets archived without objection from the proposer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A number of your closes are still supervotes. I came across this one for example: Talk:Lough_Neagh#Basin Countries. It's a clear supervote, you closed it as Closed as consensus for Norther Ireland., but you stated "With regards to this discussion both arguments are made and neither seems particularly stronger than the other, so I see no particular reason to pick one over the other. I would suggest picking something consistent with other similar articles - which seems to be Northern Ireland so I'd suggest going with that. You over-ruled the actual arguments and went with another argument that you appear to have made. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So this has been fine for several months and you bring it up now? Really?

The only reason I closed it as I did was so that the people involved had some way forward beyond the lame "lets close everything as no-consensus" that always gets taken on Wikipedia - and frankly there was an obvious consistency with other articles.

Quite frankly I couldn't give a fuck which option they go for, so I'm not really clear on why you think I might have "super voted". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't claim the arguments are as strong as each other, and then pick one as having consensus; that doesn't make any sense. You are closing RfCs when you should be adding your own opinions into the mix. In this particular case, the RfC was even started by a blocked sockpuppet and sockpuppets made a number of comments (see WP:DENY). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right that I should probably have clarified the close message a bit more, but it happened months ago, so changing it now is going to cause far more trouble than its worth. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It happened half way through last month, that isn't all that long ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you cared and this was more than harassment you should have bought it up at the time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I come across as overly emphatic, but I'm trying to help you. Please don't just dismiss it as harassment. I've only commented on one thread on your user talk page before. As far as I recall that and the AN thread are the height of my interactions with you. I arrived here through looking at Wikipedia:ANI#lough neagh, went to the talk page, and noticed an RfC page where you appear to have supervoted. I then came to your user talk page. Here a few people had highlighted that there were issues with supervoting. You didn't seem to be taking it on board as an issue though. If multiple people are telling you the same thing, it may be worth reflecting on. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see why you have commented here. Perhaps you should have mentioned the ANI thread with the first comment you made - it makes it much clearer ;).

With regards to the decision, it was a toss up between the arguments - so then I suggested going for consistency, which to me seems to favour "Northern Ireland" - I'm not really clear on what the issue with that is? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that it should have been closed as no consensus, if it's a toss up between the arguments then it should be closed as no consensus, because otherwise it falls into supervoting; you can't conclude the consensus is one way when it's not. The last part of the text of the close reads like what an argument would be during the discussion. Sometimes discussions don't arrive at any consensus, and so we default to doing what we did before.

The consistency argument has no real justification in policies and guidelines in this specific case, and an argument was put up against it citing a large amount of sources. Much like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, claiming consistency when it is not a matter of style is generally a weak argument, and it was countered in the discussion with many sources. Also bear in mind, that in that particular case, the thread was started by a sockpuppet, and pretty much argued exclusively for by the now blocked sockmaster and his sockpuppets. Arguments by socks should generally be discarded.

When you close, you take what others have said to construct your close, where you balance the arguments for and against with how they reflect policies and guidelines. If you are choosing an argument as having being argued to be stronger, strong is defined with respect to policies and guideline, not by personal preference. There is probably no need to change the current close as Factocop and his socks have been blocked and only the oppose side now remains, so things will probably work themselves out, but this advice is mostly for future closes, not the past. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of closing a discussion is providing some sort of way forward for the parties involved. Closing the discussion as no consensus and washing my hands of it wasn't exactly likely to lead the parties with anyway forward out of the dispute.

Frankly it isn't really clear that User:Factocop has any sockpuppets, and there is no serious evidence that he has some as per this, so all he has received is a very short 24 hour block for breaking an edit warring restriction. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not for you to impose your own way forward. There wasn't consensus, there is no way forward you can provide without a supervote. I see that it was a different editor who had the sockpuppets (see the block message for Hackneyhound). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So I should insist they take the case to mediation - even though there were only two or three people involved? That seems very bureaucratic... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)