User talk:SchroCat

Do not leave the ‎DS alert for infoboxes on this page.
I am aware of the requirements and restrictions and need no "reminding". Any placing of the note will be reverted, probably with an appropriate response.

FACs needing feedback view •
MLS Cup 2022	Review it now
Fountain Fire	Review it now
1973 FA Charity Shield	Review it now

Re ARC

Regarding this, I think you're misreading what they're proposing. By "review the current restrictions and sanctions against Eric Corbett to determine if they are sustainable and proving effective", they mean taking the target off Eric's back by lifting the existing "banned from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors" sanction (under which he's automatically considered at fault if he reacts no matter what provoked it). ‑ Iridescent 08:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Do they really? I'm looking at what they posted and not seeing that. I maybe wrong (very good chance of that), and obviously I wasn't party to the mailing list thread, but I'm not sure that some of those ArbCom members will see it like that. If I am entirely in the wrong, please feel free to remind me of my hubris! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

O dear lord!

WTF with this website= thing? I look at FAs I've worked on and the references are a mass of red error messages. Poor Brian must have a sea of them! Just as I started to regain a smidgen of enthusiasm for this place..... KJP1 (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It's the usual thing of a far-reaching decision being made by a relatively small number of people in what is a fairly quiet backwater, then implementing it without engaging brain, common sense or the right processes. When these decisions normally happen, a bot comes along, changes everything (with a mention in the edit summary of the decision) and then the red error message is released - if it's post-bot, there should be very little left to sort out. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Well said Schro. KJP1 On the off chance you haven't seen it here is a link to the AN thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors?. MarnetteD|Talk 18:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Cary Grant

Why did you remove the infobox about Cary Grant? That article was already lacking an infobox as it was and many other prominent articles already contain infoboxes. Cary Grant was one of the biggest Hollywood stars of the 20th century. Surely, he deserves an infobox. 20SS00 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@20SS00: There is a standing consensus that an infobox is not desired on that page. Interestingly, it seems like the edit notice about the infobox consensus is not visible to mobile editors. Wikipedia is way behind the curve in terms of mobile experience. Can you confirm that when you went to edit the page, the notice isn't visible? --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

20SS00, ↑↑↑ What he said. Laser brain, I didn't realise the notice can't be seen on a mobile view, and that's very disappointing. I've added the same neutrally worded request as a hidden note to the edit screen so that no-one can miss it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just checking on the nuance here, but are we saying someone successful and famous "deserves" an infobox. Why? Cassianto^Talk 13:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly for the same reason someone seems to be able to select their own closer of the RfC. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To the IP. I don't recall the Academy Awards ever handing out Oscars for infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Senghenydd colliery disaster scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Senghenydd colliery disaster article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 14, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 14, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Full stops

For the record ...
If a full stop is textually important, e.g. the period I snagged, another word or two after it (the period, not the ellipsis)
should easily keep future editors off it; consider also bracketed ellipses. Incidentally, I went to the source (just now)
and couldn't find the sentence in question. (!)--Brogo13 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If the sentence ends in a full stop and then we are omitting words, then the full stop should be included before the ellipsis. I have no idea why you can't find the sentence: it's been there for the last 271 years! - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

ce (copy/edit)

May I please have a clue?--Brogo13 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes: it wasn't an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Aspirations?

I think you meant 'aspersions'? Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I did - many thanks. A combination of my stupidity, mild dyslexia and the spell checker picking the wrong word! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

And sadly it seems that picking up on the misspelling is a good way to poke fun at people, regardless of something like dyslexia. Never mind. We shall soldier on regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

He's a wrong'un, ignore him. I do, but he just socks me instead. I ignore them too. Cassianto^Talk 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment at the Fram PD talk page

I've removed your latest comment as a clerk action. You are welcome to comment on the case but you should keep your remarks civil. You are expected to act with decorum in arbspace at least as much as on the rest of the project. GoldenRing (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• GoldenRing, Leave my comment alone please. You may not like it, but it is not an uncivil comment. You will be in breach of WP:3RR shortly. So stop now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It may be best to leave this, or take it somewhere else and point to a diff of what you said and see if you can get consensus to post what you are saying. Otherwise it (and some person hovering over a block button) will become a distraction. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Sadly Carcharoth, I see GoldenRing is unable to see the difference between criticising an action (or set of actions) and what actually constitutes incivility. Plus ca change, unfortunatly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have extremely low expectations of anything being done correctly any more. I see that this "may be appealed to Arbcom"... I think I'd rather not - you never know where it will end up! - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to suggest you appeal it, but I see what you mean. Have a think. If you want to appeal, I could write something (I have asked on bradv's talk page). Of course, appealing will mean more people see what you said, but is it that or the possibility that it might boomerang on you that you have concerns about (or maybe you don't trust that justice will be done)? Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me mull it over. I don't normally bother with appeals (I know when I've breached a technicality, as I have done here – in terms of edit warring with a clerk, something I did not initially know was a 'bright line' offence), and I haven't got anything too pressing on at the moment (aside from an article at FAC, one at PR and another in re-write stage)! Perhaps if GR had not removed the comment in the first place the resultant kerfuffle would not have happened. Anyway, that was to be my parting shot on the whole sad and sorry case. As I've said, the toxicity will just keep getting dragged on and on, but the opportunity to cauterise the wound passed some time ago. Many thanks for your offer though – it is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC) updated - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• These people have an over-inflated sense of self-importance. Dissent must never be stifled, however unfavorable and unfounded it may be, unless that verges on sheer and gross abuse (which this was not, by a few many miles). Let's see how long do I and Mr.Ernie stay unblocked. ∯WBG^converse 17:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I pointed that out to Gorilla Warfare on Bradv's talk page earlier, Winged Blades of Godric - surprisingly, I had no response. What we have here is a virtual dictatorship. Thank god we have the ability to switch them off at the plug socket. Cassianto^Talk 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Mr Ernie, Winged Blades of Godric, I appreciate the gesture very much, I really do. In the spirit of calm and peace, (as Carcharoth has asked for here) could you remove the comments, or, at least, not revert if one of the Clerks decides to double down on their poor decision-making process? I'd hate to see others get blocked for my actions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Cool. I will not revert, if that gets reverted by a clerk. Let's see, though :-) ∯WBG^converse 19:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's just been taken out - yours and Mr Ernie's. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Brad the Brave has anyways removed the refactored version of it, devoid of any “incivility,” as an unassailable clerk action. I wonder if these clerks will remove the arbitrator aspersions from the pages in their zeal to civilize the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Whilst it's not ok with Bradv for Gavin to call an entire committee useless, it's ok for Bradv to call me a troll. Funny that. Cassianto^Talk 19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Two ex-arbitrators (in good standing) have publicly noted that almost all clerk-actions are at-least vetted by a single arbitrator and that using clerks is their heavily-preferred method of dealing with civility (and like) stuff, for otherwise they are often later accused of having a bias and all that.

  Now, Brad certainly seems to be over-eager with the trigger and is a textbook adherent of policy (does he know Kirill?; they will make a good pair) *but* it's undeniable that arbitrators have a strong role to play in these removals. ∯WBG^converse 19:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• And sometimes do it directly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have asked here that an unblock be considered, as it is likely the case will be closed today. Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Carcharoth, Ched, That is very good of you to chip in and request it on my behalf. I am extremely grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  It’s pretty funny how everything works here. GoldenRing, who barely has 700 edits to the main space, has the power to stop you from your article work. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  700? I think I've done 700 in main space since July (and that's not including article re-writes in my sandbox, either). Oh well, whatever floats their boat, I guess. I do prefer to see at least some effort to content building from admins tho - just so they know what it feels like to have some skin in the game. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Various messages about content improvement

• Tim riley, Many thanks for your very useful comments at the PR. I will deal with them at 6ish tomorrow evening. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Cassianto, Many thanks for your comment at the FAC. It is much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem, my pleasure. I hope, during this 48 hours, you are reflecting upon your recent behaviours and are considering...carrying on exactly how you have been. If not for the benefit of the failing project, then at the annoyance of the thoroughly incompetent, and hugely pompous Arbitration Committee and their sycophantic little helpers. Cassianto^Talk 08:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Finally

Well, wrong as I do consider this situation, I do suppose that the temporary sandbox below does give some/one resolution to the great thought experiment. As offered before, I am also willing to speak to the blocking admin on your behalf. I strongly suspect that an unblock request would be granted - although I do understand your reluctance to "bow down" to any such behavior. Still - I'm sorry to see this, especially in light of the already tense and drama filled situation(s) as of late. Take care Schro - and do feel free to ping if you wish. — Ched (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ched, thanks very much for your offer – it's very kind of you to step up too. I think it was an over-reaction to remove the comment in the first place, and if GR had not decided to remove it then the rest of the kerfuffle wouldn't have taken place. Hey-ho. Worse things happen at sea, and at least I have my little workaround below. If something urgent comes up then I'll certainly give you and Carcharoth a ping to intercede. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Temporary sandbox

Burglary

The disagreement between the lookout and gang continued for a while, and the lookout said "Money may be your God, but it's not mine, and I'm fucking off!" Eventually, after input from a woman's voice and a fourth person who seemed to carry more sway than the others, the lookout agreed to remain on the roof over night. The lookout man was also given an update on the progress they had made in opening the safety deposit boxes: "We have done 90 per cent of the easy ones and we now face the hard ones."

At 2:00 am Rowlands decided he had enough material recorded to call the police again; he did not recontact his local station, but phoned Scotland Yard directly. Scotland Yard sent members of the Flying Squad to listen to the tapes, and confirmed that they thought is showed a burglary was taking place. The officers stayed with Rowlands until 8:30 am on Sunday 12 September when the gang returned to the shop and radioed the lookout. One of the gang members in the shop thanked him for staying on the roof all night and informed him that they planned to finish the job early that afternoon. At one stage in the morning a waiter from the Chicken Inn restaurant heard noises from within the bank and peered through the windows of the building to see if anything could be seen. Shortly afterwards Rowlands and listening policemen heard the final radio broadcast "Would you like to change to the other channel, over". Rowlands thinks this was the code for leaving the bank.

Police contacted bank staff and local security firms to open up their branches as they began to check 750 banks in an 8-mile radius. Each branch was visited by both bank staff and police. They visited the Baker Street branch of Lloyds at 3:30 pm on 12 September. They found the vault secure; they were unable to open the vault to check as it was as time locked. It is not known if the gang were still in the vault at the time.

During the burglary 268 safety deposit boxes were opened, about a quarter of the boxes present; the gang did not try to crack the bank's safe. Estimates of the amounts stolen vary between £150,000 and £3.5 million. One member of the gang wrote the words "Let Sherlock Holmes try to solve this" on the wall of the vault. Because of the way the gang communicated the burglary was soon nicknamed "the walkie-talkie job". Although the common name for the events is the "Baker Street Robbery", it is legally defined as a burglary. A Dictionary of Law by the Oxford University Press defines robbery as "The offence of using force against any person, or putting them in fear of being subjected to force, in order to commit a theft"; burglary is defined as "The offence, under the Theft Act 1968, of ... entering a building ... with the intention of committing one of three specified crimes in it ... [including] theft."

• Quintin Hogg owned one of the boxes.
• Gang "discovered photographs of a Conservative cabinet minister abusing children".

Investigation

Initially a news blackout was imposed on the radio messages to avoid letting the burglars know their conversations had been overheard by the police, but this was lifted by Monday 13 September. It was on that morning that bank staff opened the vault and found that they had been burgled.

800 pieces of evidence to be logged and examined.

Bank actions

• The bank's insurers offered a £30,000 reward for information that would lead to an arrest.

In March 1973 64 of those whose safety deposit boxes had been broken into sued Lloyds for £500,000. The case opened in the High Court in 1977, by which time there were 138 plaintiffs seeking damages of £660,000. One witness, a retired jeweller, recounted how he identified some of his property by walking around tables on which several items were placed; he and twenty other people were unsupervised while they did this. He noticed a single diamond that could easily have been stolen, which he estimated was between £3,000 and 4,000 at the 1971 price. Another customer complained that he saw a ring in a wastepaper bin, that it was too easy to steal some of the smaller items, if one wanted, and that one of the bank assistants had told him that two people had tried to claim the same pair of candlesticks. Four days into the trial, the judge visited the bank and the rooms where the property had been on show. The following day he adjourned the case; no reason was given and no date to resume proceedings was set.

Court cases

On 29 October 1971 two men, Abdullah Hashan Gangji and his nephew Ackbar Mohammad Ali Gangji, were both arrested on charges of handling £32,000 of bank noted that they knew to be stolen. They were remanded in custody until 16 November when bail was set at £75,000.

• In November Tucker, Gavin and Stephens were all remanded on bail to on charges relating to the break in.

On 6 December 1971 Tucker and Gavin appeared at Marylebone Magistrates' Court and were charged with entering the bank. They were remanded until January 1972.

The trial opened on 2 January 1973. Stephens, Tucker, Wolfe and Gavin were charged with breaking into the bank and stealing the contents of the security boxes—valued at a minimum of £1.5 million—and of possessing explosives. Stephens, Tucker and Gavin pleaded guilty, Wolfe pleaded not guilty. The two Gangjis were charged with handling stolen goods. The two Gangjis stated that they were acting as a courier for a Swiss-based finance house involved in purchasing sterling. Wolfe claimed...

The trial ended on 23 January 1973, after three weeks, and sentences were handed down three days later. The two Gangjis were found not guilty, Stephens, Tucker and Gavin were each given sentences of twelve years; Wolfe received eight years—shorter than the others on account of his age.

Rumours

Princess Margaret

Legacy

In 1976 James Humphreys, a Soho-based pornographer and strip club owner, alleged that police officers had stolen £1 million worth of gems "as their share" of the burglary. The following year Commander Bert Wickstead, a senior officer at Scotland Yard, was appointed to head an inquiry into the allegations.

In 2011 The Baker Street Robbery, a documentary on the burglary, was broadcast on The History Channel; the programme included an interview with Robert Rowlands and the recordings he made of the robbery. A fictionalised version of the burglary is the subject of the 2008 film The Bank Job, which uses the storyline that the crime was either set up—or later covered up—by MI5 to secure the compromising photographs of Princess Margaret, that were being kept in a deposit box at the bank by Trinidadian radical Michael X.

• Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary

---

Newspaper

• "£30,000 bail for man on bank raid charge". The Times. 30 November 1971. p. 4.
• "£30,000 bail for raid charge men". The Times. 7 December 1971. p. 3.
• "£30,000 reward offer". The Times. 28 November 1971. p. 2.
• "Bank raid inquiry". The Times. 10 October 1977. p. 2.
• "Bank hearing adjourned". The Guardian. 15 October 1977. p. 2.
• "The courts: Unsafe deposits". The Guardian. 1 October 1977. p. 9.
• "Men on notes charge get bail of £75,000". The Times. 16 November 1971. p. 5.
• "'Negligence' claims on bank over £3m raid". The Times. 11 October 1977. p. 4.
• "Sorting of gems 'like a market'". The Guardian. 13 October 1977. p. 3.
• Tendler, Stewart (2 February 1976). "Yard corruption inquiry nearing end". The Times. p. 1. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "Two not guilty of handling". The Guardian. 24 January 1973. p. 7.

Internet

• Law, Jonathan, ed. (2018). "burglary". A Dictionary of Law. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 September 2019.
• Law, Jonathan, ed. (2018). "robbery". A Dictionary of Law. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 September 2019.

Other

• The Baker Street Robbery (DVD cover). Title Role Productions. 2013.

References