User talk:Erik9/Archive 1

Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Requests for permissions/Denied/January 2009. SoxBot X (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! —  Aitias  // discussion 00:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.
 * Thank you. Erik9 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Arts/Quotes/January, 2009
Hey there! Sorry, reverted the wrong IP; my cache needed cleared and it looked like the vandalism was from the other IP on Portal:Arts/Quotes/January, 2009. Thanks for catching that. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi River
Thanks for sorting that out .William Avery (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again!--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rv On AIV
Good work, i was going to do it myself but decided not to --DFS454 (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
You're welcome. Erik9 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. Richard 0612 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
Since it's a pretty busy page, it's easy to miss individual responses; see my reply at Administrators' noticeboard. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA




 Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers The lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.
 * To copy this elsewhere type

Dear Erik, thanks for your support in my RFA  Ϣere Spell  Checkers 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great template
I have noticed you are removing the "Rulers known as the great" template from various articles. What is your explanation for doing that? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Community consensus expressed at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_14. Erik9 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed that. I strongly disagree with the decision, and it also seems like 5 votes during a 7 day period seems like a very flimsy foundation for a consensus that concerns edits on this scale. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the TFD closure, orphaning of the template, and its pending deletion, you can contest these actions at Deletion review. Erik9 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will do that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your bot's editing speed
Would it be possible for you to slow the edit speed of your bot? At one point it made 18 edits in a minute. This seems a bit fast for a non urgent task.--Rockfang (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The nature of the bot's operations described in Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 2 requires that it be manually supervised at all times when running to avoid the processing of names which fall into the exceptions listed at Categorization_of_people - if left operating unattended, the bot could, say, start categorizing sorting talk pages of biographies of people with the first name "Chang", even though Chinese names are generally written with the surname first, resulting in hundreds or thousands of bad edits. Given that I am required to sit in front of the computer watching the bot whenever it is operating, I am running the bot at a target rate of 15 to 20 edits per minute to avoid making the task unduly tedious and time-consuming. Erik9 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a valid reason to ignore policy. If anything, I would think that a slower edit speed would be beneficial to a bot that could potentially miscategorize talk pages.  That way you'd have more time to check each edit and it would be closer to following policy.--Rockfang (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy is based on the premise that the bot is operating unattended, and that there is no reason why it could not operate continuously as long as necessary to complete its tasks. My time as a volunteer on Wikipedia, however, is limited.  Given that there are currently 363,450 articles in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, limiting the bot to the prescribed rate of 6 edits per minute would seriously hinder the completion of the category sorting task.  Furthermore, running at 6 edits per minute would not resulting in more accurate operations, but would simply produce operator fatigue.  The purpose of using a bot to perform a task the nature of which requires constant operator supervision is to allow the task to be completed at a considerably higher speed than would be possible with AWB usage on my main account, and would be substantially defeated if the bot were limited to 6 edits per minute. Erik9 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked for another bot operator's opinion with this request.--Rockfang (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it would be somehow possible for you to approve the changes, but for the edit to delay itself to keep itself within a reasonable editrate... – xeno  ( talk ) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I can prepare a list of articles to edit, then run the bot unattended on the list no faster than 6 edits/minute. Erik9 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you using the maxlag parameter in your API requests to ensure that your bot isn't making the latency worse when the database gets slammed? Wronkiew (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because I don't know how to use it. However, since I will be limiting the bot to 6 edits/minute henceforth, that should resolve the issues here. Erik9 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That works too. Wronkiew (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am now using the maxlag parameter when operating the bot at a high target edit rate - see User_talk:Erik9bot. Erik9 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD closing
In most cases, CfDs are supposed to remain open for a minimum of 5 days before closing: see Deletion_process. When you closed this discussion it had not been open for 5 days yet. Also, in general, it's best if non-admins don't close discussions that result in a deletion: see Deletion_process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_24 was open for only approximately 4.077 days. I guess I'm WP:IARing and closing it (slightly) early when the consensus is overwhelmingly clear. Deletion_process does say that "Non-administrators should not close even unanimous "delete" decisions, as they lack the account feature to delete pages (that feature is only turned on for admins)", but this rationale doesn't seem to apply to CFD and TFD discussions which require the removal, replacement, or conversion of categories or templates, since the initial discussion closure does not involve an immediate deletion.  Instead, deletion is delayed until the removal, replacement, or conversion has been completed - which is why Categories for discussion/Working and Templates for deletion/Holding cell have "Ready for deletion" sections. I suppose that Deletion_process may also be intended as prophylaxis against bad non-administrative CFD and TFD "delete" closures which would require hundreds or thousands of edits to reverse the removal of categories or templates.  However, I have taken great care to only close discussions with clear, uncontroversial outcomes.  Also, if any closure I perform is overturned by an administrator, I will take full responsibility for the restoration of the categories or templates to all articles or other pages in which they appeared. Erik9 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I just don't see the point of choosing not to wait at least 5 days, even if you think the outcome is clear. Closing early just creates an opening for another user to afterwards complain about the close or the result. And there's virtually nothing lost by waiting the extra few hours. In nearly all cases, the 5 days is a minimum, not an "average" to shoot for, and this case was far from the "overwhelming consensus" type of case that I would say could possibly justify a variation of the time. But even if it is, why not wait the extra hours? There is no deadline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If we assume that the category in question is in some sense "bad" (which it surely must be, if its deletion is to be justified at all), then the (slightly) early closure improves Wikipedia by removing a bad category from articles sooner rather than later, the moment the CFD discussion reflects a sufficiently strong consensus, and has run for a sufficient period of time to justify its removal. Erik9 (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, a bit of a stretch. It's trading a potential headache of complaints and appeals over the close for very minimal "benefits". Yes, the complaints of an early close in such a case may be frivolous, but that never stops anyone from complaining about a CfD close. Many of these go to DRV over issues like this. In my view, it's just not worth the hassle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Early Tfd Closing
Hi, I came across your closing of this Tfd and wondered why you had closed it after 4-1/2 days, instead of waiting the full 7 days that are expected. These rules were put in place to ensure due process, and they should not be circumvented at any editor's whim -- especially when what is at stake is deletion. WP:IAR should be invoked sparingly, and all the more so with regard to Xfd's. Please give us some assurance that you will take this more seriously now that we have brought it to your attention. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to DPR it seems that TFDs are closed after seven days, instead of the usual five for many other XFDs (why the increased discussion length is in place, I have no idea.) In my defense, there was unanimous support for deletion at the TFD, and a discussion of adequate length to give reasonable assurance that no opposition to the deletion was likely to be expressed. Still, if the community finds closure of a TFD as "delete" after 4-1/2 days to be objectionable, then it shouldn't be done. In order to determine consensus on this issue, I'm going to do something a little unusual, by listing my own discussion closure at WP:DRV. Enjoy :) Erik9 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Listed at Deletion review/Log/2009 March 1. Erik9 (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this yourself to DRV for clarification. While there was no reason to undelete the template, there was agreement that such early non-administrator closures are not appropriate and not covered by WP:IAR. While we try to not be bureaucratic about the times it seems from this and other discussion that I was involved in, they are considered at best unnecessary, may cast procedural doubts on otherwise clear decisions and can at worst prevent a reasonable opinion to be heard. That shouldn't discourage your from NACs, though, but they will be appreciated most where they need to be closed as is your commitment to the follow-up work. Best regards, --Tikiwont (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My bot request
Thank you for all of the help you have given me at my bot request. I'm learning quite a bit about RegExp.--Rockfang (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rmeoving Template:American films
Sorry but there was no real consensu to delete these templates. NObody was notified about it at WP:Films. The "consensus" to delete was based on a decision by people who rarely ever edit film articles ans therefore have a lesser idea of why they were being used. If you must use your bot to delete the templates, I would kindly ask you to add a link in its place linking to the specific year in film. E.g an articles on American Pie add a See also List of American films of 1999. I don't mind the rmeoval of the template as such its just the complete isolation from the films by year which I disapporive of. Can you do sopmething about this? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will suspend any further removals of Template:American films until you have the opportunity to file a deletion review request regarding Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_5. I advise you to do so as soon as possible, and to note this fact prominently on the TFD discussion itself and at Templates for deletion/Holding cell, to avoid having someone else orphan the template in the interim. Erik9 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also suggest that you place your request for special procedures in orphaning the template at Templates for deletion/Holding cell. Since bot operations can proceed very quickly, while I'm coding a method to add see also entries, another bot operator holding a broadly drawn approval for template maintenance could unceremoniously remove all instances of the template. Erik9 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The best thing I think is to add the see also section. You see agree somewhat that the template may often clutter articles especially as we oftnehave director templates/franchise templates/award templates etc. My only concern is indeed that we have one link, specifically to the year in American film which is what the templates were intended for. If the link is there then we don't need the other years linked as once you click the link you ar einto the film by year with the side plate. A lot of people who objected to the template said that the best solution would be a link in the see also so people can brosw years in American film. Therefore I would ask that once you remove the tmeplates than you can get a bot to add see also sections to every film in Category:American films and link to the relative year. For instance see List of American films of 1936. Really every one of those articles listed in it should have the link feeding back to the list. So for example see Ace Drummond (serial). One of the biggest needs for these articles is consistency. If you could use your bot to go through the years in American film and ensure every article consistently links to the relative year in film I would be very grateful and it would seme to solve the problems of the template and of connecting to the years. Regards. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Substituting BS-daten with Infobox rail line
Hi, please would you help me understand why you are replacing the original "BS-daten" template on my German railway line articles with "Infobox rail line". The new template has a number of major disadvantages: first it doesn't dovetail into the route diagram but displays as a separate box; second, it is often a different width; third, it introduces a different colour scheme and fourth, it is a hassle when translating articles and adds a lot of time to the process. There are a lot of railway line articles to go so this is a real factor for me.

The overall visual effect is messy and definitely worse than before. Have a look at the Haßfurt–Hofheim railway article and its de.wiki equivalent or what was my budding "B" class candidate, the Hof–Bad Steben railway and its de.wiki opposite number.

I am sure that Infobox rail line has its utility, but would be grateful if you could revert your changes to the German railway articles. Many thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:BS-daten was deleted per Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_15. While I will not seek the deletion of your recent recreation of the template, you should know that an administrator could speedily delete it per csd g4. If you wish to have the template permanently reinstated, you should request that the TFD outcome be overturned at deletion review. If the TFD closure is overturned, I will restore the template to all articles in which it appeared. Erik9 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am new to this stuff. I suppose the ideal solution would be to have one template which combines the best features of both Info rail line and and is clever enough to interpret the German field names when BS-daten is imported. Technically possible, but I'm not expert enough to do that. How should I take this forward? --Bermicourt (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, thank you for pointing me in the right direction for reinstating this template. I'm sorry if it's caused you some bother, but it was prematurely deleted. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

List of American films
The "See also" section is for articles are things that are similar to, or connected to the actual article but are not fully discussed there. They are not for generalized links that would appear on every page, specifically when something like "List of American films" already appears (or should) in the article's category section at the bottom of the page. Please do not add links to those types of pages to the "See also" section of film articles anymore.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of the editors participating in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films seem to find the List of American films (year) links useful. Since you have chosen to blatantly misuse the rollback feature in what is clearly a content dispute, I have asked that your rollback privileges be revoked. Erik9 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am, of course, aware that controversial use of AWB is contrary to AutoWikiBrowser, and that, since I am now aware of the controversy at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films, I cannot continue to add the links to articles in a mass, semi-automated fashion until the matter is resolved. This in no way, however, justifies your misuse of rollback in what you clearly knew at the time was a content dispute. Erik9 (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi sorry you had to encounter this absurdness. Now you can see how much difficulty I get on here with these American films. People FUSS and FUSS even with a single link to the relative year in film. They provide far more information than the categories and also e.g Category:1926 films IS NOT specifically American films either for that matter. Hopefully we can come to a consensus, I appreciate your help thanks. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging BLPs
Nice work. :-) Your efforts are very much appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

blocks and protection
Done. Usually it would get done sooner, but not that many admins seem to be around tonight. DGG (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

vandalism
re: your fighting vandalism on the Arthur Mullard page. I've filed an AIV report for the comments made against you at User talk:Hoppytroffy. Perhaps it is their userpage, but calling a vandal fighter names doesn't sit well with me. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 14:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and... blocked for the day. (I'd have given him a week myself .. lol) Thanks for your work by the way. — Ched ~  (yes?)/© 14:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV report
Sorry about that. It is hard to figure out what is just misguided and what is in bad faith and, IMO, it is better to err on the side of good faith. Let's give twiddlebug a shot at figuring it out. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I like to err on the side of quickly removing tabloid-sourced slime from biographies of living persons, and rapidly ejecting the slanderers from the project by any available means. Protecting the reputations of living people is, IMHO, far more important than retaining the hypothetical future contributions of the editors defaming them. Erik9 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. You were told, in no uncertain terms, not to continue your complaints against a particular editor. I note that subsequent to the report at AIV being removed you opened a thread at WP:AN noting actions by the same editor, which predated the AIV report, requesting an indef block of them. Well, here is your block - your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours, with a block summary noting that you were engaged in forum shopping and were therefore being disruptive. Should a certain other editor also violate policy again in this matter I shall have no problem in enacting a block upon that account also, but I would strongly suggest that in future you do not disregard the advise you were given to leave this matter alone. There is little patience for people who engage in WP:BATTLE mentality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see AN and AN. Blocking me is inappropriate when the administrator who responded to the report on WP:AIV asked me to bring the matter back to WP:AN, and the first WP:AN report had been marked as "resolved" , thus directing administrative attention away from it, prior to 's latest WP:BLP violating edit . Moreover, to block me, without a talk page block warning, for a single alleged instance of "forum shopping", while permitting Twiddlebug to engage in repeated, blatant, WP:BLP-violating tabloid-sourced defamation over a period of months         , despite multiple talk-page block warnings   by multiple editors, is to assign far greater importance to preventing largely hypothetical disruption of internal Wikipedia processes than to protecting the very real interests of living people against having articles about them filled with malicious tabloid-sourced gossip and slander.  Per BLP, administrators are charged with enforcing the biographies of living persons policy, not with blocking the editors enforcing the policy. To leave the slanderer free to edit while blocking one of the few editors willing to revert him and seek his removal from the project, is anti-WP:BLP, pro-defamation, and an abuse of administrative privileges. Erik9 (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am asking the blocking administrator to comment.  Sandstein   17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In responding, I will first note the following timelines; At around 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Erik9 opened a thread at WP:AN complaining of 's edits at a BLP article, and requesting indef block of the editor. The substance of the complaint was upheld, and was marked as resolved at 03:03 12 April 2009 (UTC) with a note that Twiddlebug had acknowledged the need for reliable sources when making contentious edits on articles, without a block being executed. While the discussion was in the early stages Erik9 also reported Twiddlebug to WP:AIV at 01:40 12 April 2009 (UTC) - this was responded to at 02:05 with a decline noting the matter was being discussed at the appropriate venue, WP:AN. Erik9 was continuing to edit until 03:12 12 April 2009. While Erik9 was off-Wiki, Twiddlebug commented upon Erik9's talkpage arguing their case but not repeating the allegation. Twiddlebug ceased editing around 04:44 12 April 2009 (UTC). Upon resuming editing, Erik9 again reported Twiddlebug to AIV, and was again declined - but this time with a warning not to forum shop. Despite the warning, and with Twiddlebug rehashing the argument (but again not repeating the allegations) on his talkpage, Erik9 opened a new WP:AN thread again requesting an indef block and still referring to the initial edits by Twiddlebug.
 * To sum up, I note that Erik9 correctly (despite some language which was noted as inappropriate) brought the communities attention to impropor additions to a BLP article by Twiddlebug. However, they also filed an AIV report soon afterwards, which was declined pending resolution at AN. Post resolution, and without the block requested, Erik9 made a new AIV report which was again declined, with a warning not to forum shop. Erik9 then made a fresh report to AN, with a request to indef block Twiddlebug, and commenting upon the original complained of edits. (Twiddlebug had not, in the meantime, repeated the allegations although had argued their validity.) I took the view that Erik9 was not prepared to accept the communities earlier resolution of the matter, and was prepared to disrupt the encyclopedia until they had the result they desired. To prevent this disruption I blocked Erik9 for 24 hours - noting my actions on the more recent AN thread with a note that the block may be lifted upon Erik9 desisting from their campaign.
 * I note that Erik9's unblock request again rehashes the complaint against Twiddlebug, even though it had been dealt with many hours previously. I do not see that the potential for disruption has decreased, and would suggest that the block be allowed to stand. I would also comment that I have added to Twiddlebug's final warning that they should not interact with Erik9 on this or related matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your chronology is misleading. To review the reports in their proper context:


 * 01:15, 12 April 2009 Twiddlebug complains about my reversion of his WP:BLP violating edits, the warning I issued to him, and repeats his WP:BLP-violating allegations on my talk page.
 * 01:31, 12 April 2009 I report the matter on WP:AN. Twiddlebug had restored the WP:BLP violation to the article itself ten minutes previously, but I hadn't yet noticed it.
 * 01:39, 12 April 2009 I revert Twiddlebug's WP:BLP violation, again
 * 01:40, 12 April 2009 considering the matter to be quite urgent, since Twiddlebug was repeatedly restoring the WP:BLP-violating material, I report it on WP:AIV one minute later.
 * 04:39, 12 April 2009 with my first report on WP:AN being marked as resolved, and the first report on WP:AIV having already been declined, Twiddlebug returns to my talk page with more WP:BLP violations.
 * 10:57, 12 April 2009 I return to editing, and report the further WP:BLP violations on WP:AIV. The report is declined; however, the administrator responding to it instructs me to take the matter back to WP:AN . Since the first WP:AN thread had already been marked as resolved, prior to Twiddlebug's latest WP:BLP violation , I opened a new thread. Prior to you blocking my account, the sole administrative action that the new thread resulted in was the issuance of a "final warning" to Twiddlebug by the same administrator who had declined the report on WP:AIV. This seems to reflect his treatment of the report on WP:AN as appropriate, not "forum shopping" Erik9 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have rehashed Twiddlebug's misconduct in my unblock request not as an additional requested to have him blocked, but rather because it is relevant to the issue of proportionality, and the fair treatment of both parties to a dispute. To claim that even serious WP:BLP violations that could cause substantive harm to living people do not merit a block until three stern talk page block warnings are issued, but perceived "forum shopping" is summarily blockable without warning, reflects, in my mind, some very skewed priorities. Erik9 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, despite your contention that "I do not see that the potential for disruption has decreased", a review of my edit history would have shown that I had been editing in entirely unrelated areas for over two hours after my last report on WP:AN , and that I returned my attentions to this sordid matter only when you blocked my account . Erik9 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to unblock you if you agree not to keep persuing the matter unless the user resumes his contentious editing - I get the impression from your above comments that you have no intention of persuing a block, am I correct? – Toon (talk)  22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you. Erik9 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've been unblocked. – Toon (talk)  22:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)