User talk:Chazz

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Just a place-holder in case someone wants to say something to me... Chazz 07:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering – I have slowed down on my work here because RL responsibilities increased as the school year started. But I am still trying to contribute, in and around my other committments. Chazz 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't keep archives; this is talk, it is by its nature ephemeral. Of course, if you want to see what was on here that I have taken away, there is always the history... Chazz 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Contact 2 Contact 3 OtP The Hearing 4 Muggles' Guide PDF Version 5 Hello--Again 6 Justs to clear it up 7 Tom Riddle Sr. deletion

[edit] Contact

Hi Chazz,

I was reading your write up of Order of the Phoenix and I just wanted to point out a couple of things. In Chapter 27 Analysis, it was Seamus Finnegan's 1st meeting. Also, the patronus charm in Deathly Hallows is mentioned. Seamus Finnegan also participated. I always thought he was the terrier.

angisweety@gmail.com

Angi, that wasn't the Order, that was Dumbledore's Army, and yes I do have him mentioned there somewhere... if you look at Dumbledore's Army, you will see mention that it was Seamus' first meeting that was broken up by Umbridge. I'll check the chapter 27 write-up to confirm and correct, though in fact you can do that yourself if you want to. Patronuses are mentioned in DH:32, where we see that Ron's is a terrier, and Hermione's (as we had seen before in the Ministry) is an otter; we also see that Luna, Seamus, and Ernie have, between them, a hare, a boar, and a fox, but we don't really know which is whose. Chazz (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

Hi Chazz,

I would like to get in touch with the writer of the profound analyses of each of the chapters of the Harry Potter-books (is it you?), because he has answered some questions very well, questions of which the answers are not so obvious as they might seem at first sight. I would like to discuss with him some more questions that he didn't treat, and make some remarks about solutions he has proposed. I hope you can help me. Kind regards, and thanking you in advance, Thomas den Haan

Thomas, as you did not sign up for an account, I cannot easily leave a response on your talk page – your talk page is associated with an IP address, and IP addresses can change, so you quite possibly would never get it.

The analyses were almost entirely written either by myself or PNW Raven, though a user who is no longer contributing wrote the core of the series overview analysis. Because it was a joint effort, any discussion about those should appear in a place where all contributors can join in. Perhaps a good starting place is here on my talk page; we can then move individual questions to the specific chapter sections where they belong — discussion regarding a chapter belongs in that chapter's write-up, no? For more private information, there is an "Email me" link on my user page. Actually, that seems to have gone away... but if you do need to email me, let me know and I'll post an email address. Chazz (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chazz,

I have created an account now, so that problem is fixed. I'm glad you could help me. I would like to repeat that your analyses have enormously helped me, for instance on the question why Voldemort could die, while he was tied to Harry by blood.

I would like to raise some new questions and discuss some you already have asked yourselfs:

First of all, what is the reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape? At first reading it seems that he did so because he saw Snape's regret after Lily Evans' death. But strictly speaking, it could have been that Snape's love for Lily had faded over the years, and that he would really have turned to Voldemort again. Until the scene with the doe in Dumbledore's room (which took place in the sixth year), we don't know of any clue that Dumbledore could have gotten which unarguable would have proven that Snape was still loyal after fifteen years. Dumbledore even seems rather surprised that Snape is still in love with Lily ("After all those years?"). That suggests that meanwhile he had other reasons to trust Snape. Or he had evidence on Snape's loyalty that we don't have. Or I haven't understood it right.

Secondly, Snape tells Bellatrix in book 6 that his information led to the death of Emmeline Vance. She was a member of the Order. I assume that Snape discusses with Dumbledore the information he will give to Voldemort. He also says in The Prince's Tale that he has only let those people die that he could not save. That suggests that Dumbledore and Snape were somehow forced to give Voldermort information on Vance, and that they could not prevent her death. I cannot imagine they would have let her die, but it also seems unlikely that she willingly would have died (she fought fiercely). Why did she die? Was it an unforeseen event?

Thirdly, how did Snape (and maybe Dumbledore) know the date of Harry's departure from the Dursleys?

Fourthly, Dumbledore tells Snape that he has to tell Harry to get himself killed when Voldermort no longer sends his snake out. This suggests that Dumbledore knew for sure that Voldemort would find out about Harry's quest on the Horcruxes, for that's why Voldemort protects his snake. But how could Dumbledore have known? It was only because they had to go to the bank that Voldemort came to know it, and Dumbledore didn't know there would be a Horcrux in the bank. It could have been Voldemort never found out, never would have protected his snake and then Snape never would have told Harry. It could also have been that the snake was killed earlier, before the other Horcruxes. He could have been killed at Bathilda's place. How did Dumbledore know?

And what is Dumbledore's serious injury that Snape is talking about early in book 6 (to Bellatrix and Narcissa)? Does he want them to believe that his wounded hand was caused by Voldemort? But wouldn't Voldemort know if he had injured Dumbledore? Or is this another injury that has healed again?

Well, these are some of my thoughts. I hope I made them clear. I look forward to yours!

Thomas, I'll answer here, but these are good points, and I'll very shortly put them in the analysis of the page they belong on.

Why does Dumbledore continue to trust Snape? Once Dumbledore grants someone his trust, he doesn't revoke it lightly. We see evidence that Snape is quite frequently in Dumbledore's company, both in the memories of the Prince and in Harry's direct experience. And while it is never said outright, we believe that Dumbledore has some ability at Legilimency. Dumbledore clearly expected Snape's love for Lily to fade, as shown by his reaction to Snape's Patronus; however, he would not expect Snape's loyalty to fall away, and back towards Voldemort, until Voldemort returned. It is quite possible that Dumbledore had inspected Snape quite thoroughly after the end of GoF, but we would not see that in the Prince's memories, because that would have been one of the more humiliating experiences in Snape's recent life, and would not have been germane to Harry in any event. (To be added to Snape's character page, and possibly Dumbledore's)

Snape's information leading to the death of Emmeline Vance: yes, Dumbledore is not only aware of the information that goes to Voldemort through Snape, in the Prince's memories we see that Dumbledore is actually demanding that Snape give potentially harmful information to Voldemort. I expect that Vance's death was not preventable, that Voldemort had already set his sights on her, but Snape had provided some small piece of information that had helped. And I suspect that Snape and Dumbledore had also provided Vance with the information that would allow her to fight back; I suspect that she had agreed, if in the battle she would have a chance to take some Death Eaters with her. I expect that, in fact, she did, and that the retreating Death Eaters had carried away and probably concealed their dead. (Analysis of first or second chapter of HBP)

Harry's departure date almost certainly came to Snape through Mundungus Fletcher, a trusted Order member who was still occasionally communicating with Snape, as we see in the Prince's memories. (Greater picture of first chapter of DH)

Dumbledore's prediction that Nagini would be the last Horcrux extant is definitely a weak point. We can be sure that somehow, Voldemort will eventually discover that his Horcruxes are being hunted down and destroyed; he already knows that the diary was destroyed, having learned that from Lucius Malfoy, and will have guessed that Dumbledore knows it to have been a Horcrux. Yes, this time it was only after the incursion into Gringotts that Voldemort found out. Dumbledore would, however, have expected that Voldemort would not put Nagini into such a directly dangerous position as fighting Harry and Hermione directly, and would have been quite surprised had he known of it. Nagini, after all, holds one sixth of Voldemort's immortality. We readers are less surprised, knowing that Voldemort had intended possibly half of his immortality (at that point) to act as a weapon -- the diary seems to have been the second Horcrux created. This is not a complete analysis; I'll have to think this one over a bit more. (Analysis of DH 33)

And the injury that Snape referred to is certainly Dumbledore's blackened hand, caused by the curse Voldemort left on the ring Horcrux; I don't recall that Snape said it was caused by Voldemort, so I can't answer this one completely at the moment, but will research and answer more fully either here or in the appropriate chapter of HBP.

I hope that helps. By the way, if you end your edits with four tildes, ~~~~, the Wiki software will insert your signature. Chazz (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Chazz,

Thank you, it certainly does. It is indeed unlikely that Snape would have fallen back to Voldemort's side before his return: Dumbledore was his only protection from Azkaban. But after it, there would have been reason to check Snape. Apparently Dumbledore didn't rely on Snape's love anymore, which means he had other reasons. I agree with you on the assumption that it is likely that Dumbledore relied on his judgement of character, and that he had gotten to know Snape very well. This means Dumbledore saw that Snape had become a better person: this is confirmed by the fact that Snape doesn't like it when Hermione is called a Mudblood by Phineas Nigellus. I think that's a good solution, thank you.

On Vance I agree as well. Dumbledore would have warned and prepared her, possibly even offering to hide her, but that she wouldn't have accepted that last thing, since that would mean she couldn't fight anymore.

I forgot that if Snape could give Fletcher information, he probably could get it from him as well.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the snake. I still think it very unlikely.

On the injury: Snape says in chapter 1 of HPB that Dumbledore is getting old, that he has been seriously injured in the duel with the Dark Lord, because his reflexes are less sharp. Strange, not?

Again, thanks for the answers. I still have some other questions as well:

Harry is protected by his mother's sacrifice. This means Voldemort cannot hurt or even touch him. Dumbledore added that his house would be protected as well (OotP, ch. 37). But why does Dumbledore's protection fall away when Harry turns 17 (his mother's doesn't, and the two are connected)? Or why isn't Voldemort able to attack Harry's house when he has his blood in him, since he can attack Harry from then? Why don't the Death-Eaters do so? They are not hindered by that magic. But still they cannot even see the house, according to Moody (DH, ch.4).

I know this question hasn't been answered yet in your analysis on chapter 35, but I would like to raise it again. Why did Dumbledore want Snape to become the master of the Elder wand? That raises many questions. First of all, Dumbledore says he wanted Snape to become the master in chapter 35. But in chapter 36, Harry says that Dumbledore wanted to die inconquered. That seems contradictory. Did he want there to be another master, or not?

What do you think? ThomasdenHaan (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The protection thing is really quite clear: Harry is protected by his mother's sacrifice so long as there is a place that is sheltered by his mother's blood, that he can call home. When Harry reaches 17, he becomes an adult, and is responsible for providing his own home — he's no longer able, in the eyes of Wizarding law, to call Petunia's house his own. One could wonder if Harry's own blood, being as much his mother's as Petunia's is likely to be, could thus provide his own shelter... particularly since, by that time, he owns the house at Grimmauld Place. But can he call that his home? He certainly doesn't think of it as a home until at least mid-August, once Kreacher has been turned... and apparently, the protection once broken may not be able to be restored.

The protection of Petunia's home against the Death Eaters is likely something that Dumbledore did. You may remember that in PS:1 he said something about strengthening the protection afforded Harry by Lily's sacrifice. I personally believe that what he did there was to extend the protection to cover the house as well. How he protected it against being seen by the Death Eaters I do not know; would the Fidelius charm work on Muggles? If it does, he couldn't use that as it would make the house invisible to Vernon's "friends" and the neighbors. I'll have to research that one a bit also.

As for the Elder Wand: Dumbledore knew that it would transfer its power only when the holder of the wand was defeated; he made the extremely common error of assuming defeat = murder. He knew that Snape would kill him, at that point, and believed that his wand would be entombed with him, though Snape would be its holder. What Dumbledore wanted was for the final holder of the wand to die undefeated, so that the wand would not be able to transfer its power to any new wizard; he didn't much care who that final holder was. If it was to be Snape, and the wand was in Dumbledore's tomb, nobody would challenge Snape for it because Snape would not have it. He had hoped that the final holder of the wand would be Snape for that reason. I'll have to re-check what Harry actually said in DH:36, but if in fact he said that Dumbledore had wanted to die undefeated, that comes to the same thing, except that Dumbledore, instead of Snape, would then have been the final holder of the wand. My immediate suspicion, though, is that Harry was over-simplifying things, as he rather tended to do.

I haven't yet had a chance to do my research, it has been hectic here. But stay tuned... Chazz (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• reset

One note on Dumbledore's injury: The injury was received in a duel with a Horcrux, and as we saw in CoS, a Horcrux can and often does have the same abilities as the person who created it. In that light, it could be considered a duel with the Dark Lord, and the Dark Lord wouldn't know about it because his connection to his Horcruxes has become so tenuous as his soul has become tattered. More in the book chapter write-up.

But that cannot be the explanation, since Snape doesn't know anything about the Horcruxes at all. That is evident from his memories. This means that Snape wants Bellatrix and Narcissa to believe the injury is caused by the duel in the ministry - with the real Dark Lord. Apparently he and Dumbledore want to create the rumour that that's the cause of his injury, and I can only conclude that Voldemort doesn't know if he has injured Dumbledore at all, since otherwise the rumour would have been exposed.

I thought Harry was protected by his mother's sacrifice for his whole life: otherwise his mother's blood in Voldemort could not have protected him in the forest, when he was 17 already. And Dumbeldore added, that as long as he has a house where his mother's blood lived, that would be protected as well. I understand that part. But when Voldemort took Harry's blood, he could hurt Harry again. So I'd expect that he would also be able to hurt him in that house, but apparently Dumbledore's addition is not affected. But I guess we can only accept this as a fact, since an explanation lacks (and wouldn't be important either). Then the only strange thing left is that the Death-Eaters seem to be somehow affected by Dumbledore's additional charm.ThomasdenHaan (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree about Snape being unaware of Horcruxes. I don't see any mention of them in the appropriate part of the Prince's Tale, but they are not ruled out either. I'll amend the discussion page in light of that.

Voldemort was always able to hurt Harry, he was just never able to kill him... and that protection, coming from a parent, is tied to the nature of parenthood: when Harry turns 17, he no longer needs a parent, he is of age and is (magically) on his own. At least, that's how I read it. The reason for taking Harry's blood was to prevent Harry's touch from hurting Voldemort. As there was no parental connection between Harry and Voldy, the parental limitation fell out of play there, or at least that's what I would expect.

One thing also to consider, looking at the Death Eaters and their inability to see Harry's house, is the nature of agency. Riddle did not kill Myrtle directly, he had the Basilisk do it; yet we are told that he was able to create a Horcrux on the strength of that. Likewise, Voldemort seemed to feel that he did not have to kill Snape directly to gain the benefit of his murder (control of the Elder Wand), rather having Nagini do it. The latter is questionable, as Nagini, with embedded Horcrux, could be seen as a surrogate Voldy, but the Basilisk, as a separate and nominally self-aware individual (when Harry hears it in the pipes, it is planning, which is a mark of self-awareness), is an agent rather than a weapon. This leads us to the idea that magic acts on the agent and the originator similarly. Thus, being Voldemort's agents, could the Death Eaters be bound by the same spell that bound Voldemort? If they were acting independently, perhaps they could find Harry's house... but Voldy clearly doesn't like independence in his underlings. Chazz (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Big revision, which results in taking two clauses out of the HBP:2 write-up. Snape never says that Dumbledore's injuries are the result of a duel with the Dark Lord. What he says is: "The duel with the Dark Lord last month shook him. He has since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were." (Italics mine.) Two separate events... and no need for Snape to know the ring was a Horcrux. Chazz (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

O yes, I see it on the injury now. But regarding Snape and the Elder Wand, Dumbledore says at the end of the chapter King's Cross, that he knew from the moment of Voldemort's return at the graveyard that Voldemort would go after the Elder Wand. Why did he want the Elder Wand to pass on to Snape then, if he knew that Voldemort would go looking for it, and thus probably would kill Snape AND be the true master of the Elder Wand? That makes no sense.ThomasdenHaan (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OtP The Hearing

J.K said on her site that Mrs. was lying when she said she saw Dementors. To be honest there is no such a thing showing from the text.She just made it up afterwards if you ask and i am getting pretty tired of that even if its her book.

I have to overrule you on this one. OotP:2, second paragraph: "I told him I'd flay him alive if he went, and now look! Dementors!" Harry's sole utterance to this point, in Mrs. Figg's presence, had been "What?" Mrs. Figg has no way, except for her own perceptions and her observation of the effects on Harry and Dudley, to know what has happened at that point, and yet she knows that there were Dementors. Perhaps she didn't see them, but she certainly knew they were there. Chazz (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Muggles' Guide PDF Version

Hey, I'm back on my PDF interest again and wanted to check one thing: do you believe that the TOC is up-to-date? Some progress has been made with large document export to PDF and I'm going to try to create one again. Happy Thanksgiving too (although that probably isn't as important in Canada?)! -withinfocus 04:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The TOC is currently built more like an All pages which helps for export but not much else. -withinfocus 22:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it's complete. I used some fancy new Collections features to make it happen and although it still needs tweaking the PDF is ready. The page used to make it is here (but keep that kinda quiet since if someone else uses that link it will take forever to produce and we probably shouldn't put that kind of load on the servers) and by editing that page we can clean up the printed TOC. I'm thinking we should get the word out because it's pretty cool to have this now and at 1602 pages it's pretty impressive. -withinfocus 23:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hello--Again

Yes, I'm back, although I never actually leave--just short breaks. I didn't realize you were still working on OotP. I'll hold off on those chapter. Of course, you and I both know, that neither one of us will ever really be done with this project . . . it's an ongoing addiction. Great content, by the way. Keep it up. Happy editing!PNW Raven (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think what you (or I) write in the analysis or GP is "obvious" at all when you consider these books are intended for young readers. My goal is to enlighten them on issues they might not otherwise consider and to educate on "how" to read, not just "what" to read. If anything seems too simplified for adults, then they should go read James Joyce or someone. ;-)PNW Raven (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree about condensing the character synopsis. I'll work on this, as you will also, I'm sure. Cheers! PNW Raven (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I figured you were finished or least very close to finishing OotP. I really hacked down the Harry character page (Book 1 and 2 sections), and will probably trim more, but please take a look, if you haven't already. Cheers! PNW Raven (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Justs to clear it up

"no administrator acts to remove a block" = "the individual is banned" is not a tautological logical statement because "administrators" are a floating variable, the group is not constant (or even homogeneous), making in not always true, that is why in the rewording I proposed the inclusion of "while" to replace the "if".
Another issue is that while an administrator can't be made to act, forced, not even by a policy (at best they are expected to). The solution for a refusal to act could be promoting someone willing to do the job (unless it was contrary to policy) or even demoting those that demonstrated to be acting in bad faith in a proceeding.
As for the discussion going on so long about the issue of inaction, and the importance that I placed the phrase and the particular way of presenting the situation resulted from a deeper history that relates to it, that you and others may or may not not be aware of, but Mike is, this is why I mentioned that "One can even argue that by how it is worded an admin that goes against a previous stance from the previous active administrators would be acting against the whole community.", I saw this argumentation put forward before and it is a fallacy, it would be extremely damaging to the project, in my view, to permit that interpretation from a policy, especially relate to blocking, were it was used before. --Panic (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The tautology remains: if no administrator will lift the block, then the user is banned; if the user is banned, no administrator has lifted the block. Changing the word "while" to "if" does not change that. Yes, administrators can change; there is no inherent permanence in the statement as made. Yes, administrators can change opinions. I fail to see the problem. Quite frankly, Panic, it sounds to me a lot as though you are making mountains out of molehills. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Chazz (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If a user is gets an with indefinite block it will not be banned (the user can still participate and interact with the community in a very limited way, it will still be part of the community, have a voice and means of appeal) there isn't in any policy not even in the proposed text any reference to a ban, banishment or any official ostracization from the community, only a limitation of activities. Even if my objection wasn't directed to the classification of a indefinitely blocked user situation as a state of banishment the phrase has to be taken as a whole and in its full implications.

Simply put and reducing it to the absurd "If no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community." is false just because the I as a member of said community will not validate such delegation of power.

I don't particular care if any admin will be willing or not, if any Wikibookians (even the blocked user) requests an unblock, it can initiate a discussion process to gather consensus for a solution. This was particularly important to resolve the mess of the block frenzy on my account and why I take the matter so seriously. I assure you that one of the motivations to still be in the project is to guarantee that no one else goes by a similar process.

"While no reason is provided to an administrator to lift the block, the blocked user is considered to have been banned from the project.", was my rewording of the original phrase, objected by Mike. I agree that both are futile (except for classifying a block as a ban). Well the issue is closed, I hope you understand my motivation is not to be obnoxious but when I pick a subject is because if for no one else, it is relevant to me and for what I see as the good of the project. --Panic (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One person is not the community; the community is the aggregate of all the people in it. The community generally chooses representatives, or has representatives chosen from it, to represent the will of the community, as it is difficult to deal with the individuals in a community. In our case, we have accepted the Administrators, who were chosen from the community, as representatives of the community. Particularly in online communities like Wikibooks, if a person, no matter how august (like HerbyThyme, for instance) no longer feels that the community is a place for him, or if his views clash with the views of a community, he is welcome to find, or found, a community elsewhere more in line with his thinking. Additionally, we have a third option, apart from the proverbial "my way ore the highway": if you disagree with the "community ban" as applied by the community representatives, you can try to become a representative yourself, by simply nominating yourself for adminship on RFP. However, "If no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community." is true because the administrators are acting as the representatives of the community. As a member of the community you are able to disagree, but the community as a whole is not controlled by one person. And in fact cannot be. Going back to the example of QuiteUnusualPlaysWithBlocks, clearly he was vandalizing the project. Yet, as a registered user, he is a member of the community. Does his opinion count as much as yours? Does his opinion that he should be allowed to continue vandalizing the project prevent us from banning him, to save the project and the community?

Your rewording of the sentence does change the meaning, in that it requires Admins to act when "reason" is provided, and makes an implicit assumption that there is a structure for that "reason" to be provided. We have no such structure and to date have needed none. Do you really want to saddle a small project like Wikibooks with the whole superstructure of a appeals process and the associated administrative offices? We don't need that. Additionally, the sentence binds administrators to inaction if no reason is provided. What about "I think that's long enough?" That reason is not "provided", it just happens.

Finally, I have to say that I think you have wasted an awful lot of time that could have been spent on all our parts, yours, mine, Mikes, and QuiteUnusual's, in advancing the goals of WB, namely the creation of textbooks, splitting hairs on one, basically meaningless, sentence of a policy. This whole two-day, multipage effort could have been expressed with the two sentences: "This one line seems to indicate an equivalence between community and administrators, seems to suggest inactivity as a required form of action on the part of administrators, and mentions bans that are nowhere defined in the document, and apart from that does not seem to have any real reason to exist. I recommend removing it in its entirety." Chazz (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I also disagree with you on those interpretation. In Wikibooks the decission process is based on consensus, by default all persons opinions are important (if all are working in good faith), I respect your view point but you have also respect mine.

The only representatives that are chosen are for the Wikimedia structure, supra-project. An administrator, CU or bureaucrat are only Wikibookians with a task, working in behalf of the community, because they agreed to perform these maintenance tasks for the good of the project, nothing more. We can't even state that they have a greater experience over the general Wikibookian, they are experienced Wikibookian (and this only recently), this is why it is a request for "permission", they are permitted to execute a similar task to a city inspector in a real community.

I also disagree that divergent opinions should be excluded if they remain civil, I now understand that you see things differently from me on these specific issues, but I will not work to exclude you (and you even if unwilling will have to reciprocate), I'm dialogging with you just to understand our divergences and find points where you can compromise. It this dialogs that lead to the evolution and improvement of the project and prevents stagnation, the project becomes inclusive in place of exclusive...

In the case of QuiteUnusualPlaysWithBlocks if the users recognizes that he was acting against standard rules and after a adequate sanction for the harm done, it should be given full liberty. I agree that some of the user rights should be removed temporarily, this includes the power to be recognized in discussions beyond the user present situation (this is how block has been working and how I expect it continues to work). The block should be the only act that can be imposed on a user without his agreement, all other acts have established default processes and the return to a previous state is the only right way of resolving disputes were consensus fails. This is conservative by nature, as the block task the priority must be to minimise damage to the wiki.

I also disagree that the rewording requires Admins to act. The right no to act is on the Adminsitrators policy (there is no need and it would be problematic to replicate it elsewhere). There is also a structure for that "reason" to be provided (this has always been available), that is a request for unblock by the blocked user and a valid intervention by any other Wikibookian (not particularly an admin). As for the need or not for an arbitration I have mixed feeling, just because I tested the process it is my view, if all parts are working in good intention, unneeded (I don't know how it goes on other projects, and I don't particularly see a need to replicate what is done elsewhere), the proposed text now still doesn't cover that issue and it would be extremely hard to adopt the text if it did.

At present I assure you no policy or guideline backs your view points as described above (just the contrary), and I will fight any change that implements stratification to the community.

To me this is not a waste of time, you are free or not to participate, there is not even a need to address this quickly, but it would be more problematic to put forward the text for approval with that phrase included and a objection raised. This in general is a chance to improve the text.

Yes I used a simplified form to request Mike to rethink the change, sadly it failed... --Panic (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your definition of the form of consensus that WB works under. If we accept consensus as being "accepted by all members of the community," then nobody could ever get blocked, because the person who is being blocked clearly does not accept the community belief that he should be blocked. Sometimes actions must be taken for the good of the community as a whole that individual members of the community do not agree with. Some of those actions may have long-lasting results, some may be permanent.

We clearly have multiple other areas of disagreement as well, and I'm afraid we are at an impasse at this point. What you have decided are your definitions clearly do not agree with mine, and neither of this will convince the other. I am afraid I have other jobs calling, and must declare this conversation closed. Chazz (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Therefore we have determined the cornerstone of our divergence on these subjects, but I don't see my position as extremist to validate your rational that it prevents accounts for being blocked as I don't see you defending that a compromise should be discarded. You and I aren't alone on our divergent viewpoints on this subject, but it is my opinion that my position in this is more positive to the project since it makes it harder to discard minority views and recognizes equal participation to all Wikibookians, in fact even with the substantial changes made to the Wikibooks:Decision making guideline, my interpretation finds there more support than yours. Recently the archival of a non opposition in discussions as a goal has gained more strength, and I have as yet to find any lengthy blocking of a decission process, or even a block position that hasn't been resolved by generating the best outcome possible and a sense of inclusion to all involved. --Panic (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say on this subject. Chazz (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Riddle Sr. deletion

Hey Chazz, I removed the speedy deletion tag off the Tom Riddle Sr. page. I don't see how this falls under any of the WB:SPEEDY criteria (looks like meaningful content, though maybe not in the best place).

I suggest you contact PotterRocks ( talk | email | contribs ) and see if you he'll agree. He's a new contributor and a nice welcome message with an explanation from the (by far?) primary contributor to that book seems like a good idea. One of the speedy deletion criteria is that there is consensus amongst book contributors, but if you can convince him that the content belongs elsewhere, a request from him would suffice, too. --Swift (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I've actually been rethinking that. For all that we know virtually nothing about Riddle Sr., still he has a larger role in the books than many who do have pages. I guess I was just grumpy... I'll drop PotterRocks a line, see what we can come up with there. Chazz (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good to hear. :-) --Swift (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)