This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
He has returned. Those are his edits precisely...at least now he isn't suffering from Tourette's in the edit summaries. If you need diffs, I'll get them for you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Could this non-free image be increased in size to 350 pixels and not higher? I had discussed with you about the huge size before but now the size is too small. At 350 pixels, it should still be inline with fair use guideliness. It doesn't show well in the Trek article because the resolution is ultra-low at 150 pixels. Unfortunately, former Admin Rich has been desysopped and I can't talk to him. What do you think? Its your call here. Or should I upload a new image file...or just do nothing. I'll follow whatever you advise. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This image has no license at present. What would you do here? There is something noted in the camera metadata, I notice. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It was blanked by the creator, which we usually honor as a request for deletion, so the file has already been deleted. Courcelles 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeesh. Blocks have been duly issued. Courcelles 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Alan Turing
Hi. Requesting temporary page protection for Alan Turing (his page is super busy with IP edits due to being commemorated today on google homepage).Chie one (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, for 12 hours. Courcelles 04:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Would love to help, but I've not got a clue. Courcelles 23:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Erk. I thought I had them and then absolute panic that I got them wrong outside of the ones I 100% knew. :( --LauraHale (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Youu know the irony is that you were the one to create both redirects that needed deleting to perform these moves? ;) Courcelles 21:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Ha, I know. I usually create redirects for the characters as soon as they're announced. Do you think I've expanded the Troy article enough from this list entry for DYK? - JuneGloomTalk 21:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The list entry is 7304 characters, the new article is 21068 characters. In the old days, that wouldn't have counted, but I must admit not looking at DYK in well over a year. Courcelles 22:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the rules are still the same. Nevermind, I've got another article that can go there when I've finished it. - JuneGloomTalk 22:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Rangeblock
Hi Courcelles
Looking for some help please!
Do you know how to do a range block? I'm just wondering if it would be possible for this user given the amount of IPs they use to evade their block? The only thing is I don't know how to do a range block :)
In case you wonder why I'm asking, they've been more active recently and keep threatening to come back under IPs--5 albert square (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I know how to. Unfortunately in this case the range is too big to block.--Jasper Deng(talk) 01:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do at all? Other than keep giving the IPs he edits from lengthy blocks?--5 albert square (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Normally you'd semi all the target pages, and yes unfortunately the only other thing is to keep whacking them. In very extreme cases the ISP can be contacted, but that doesn't seem warranted here.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The range off that report is 86.0.0.0/8. No way we can block anything that big -- 16.7 million IP's. Semi what you can, whack the moles when you need to. Courcelles 04:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if it would be possible for you delete a slight error I made while moving a page earlier? User:List of Home and Away characters (1988) was created by accident (my own careless hands) in an attempt to move the article from userspace into mainspace.
On the night of Thursday 12 July in DC at the Newseum near the Wikimania conference, Consumer Reports and the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium are hosting a social event and a panel on health information and Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to attend. Please RSVP here if you want to attend either or both the social event or the panel. It was nice meeting you at the Wikimedia NYC election. Sometime I would like to ask you more about what it means to be an arbitrator. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, I don't think I'll be getting into DC until the day after. Hiowever. I look forward to talking on Governor's Island this Saturday. Courcelles 23:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you can help with something please.
I'm wondering if you can please check if User:Olliesimpson101 is a sock of anyone?
I've received an email from the school who's page he vandalised, I won't go into too much detail as it's a public page but they have said that they believe the account to be a sockpuppet. I don't think they know themselves who of yet as they say that their enquiries are ongoing, I've checked the edit history of the page myself and I can't see who (if anyone) it's a sock of. Is there any checks you can do to see if it's a sock?
Since when do schools go around talking about sockpuppets? I think the school should contact WMF directly - or at least, OTRS - if they want checkuser-derived information about who is who. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ditto that. The account is suspiicous, but there's no way we will ever share checkuser data with a school in this situation -- they can always contact the WMF< but I won't tell them anything I wouldn't say in an SPI. That said, I might consider blocking as a VOA and semi-protecting that page. Courcelles 22:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That's OK, I've sent them a link with all the WMF contact details on it. I did consider indef blocking the user before under VOA but I wasn't sure if that would be seen as bad faith or not. I've reconsidered it though and now indef blocked them and indef semi-protected the schools page :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Note
Hi Courcelles, I mentioned your name here. Best. Acalamari 22:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the pervaling opinion back then was pretty much a DE-WP style "Everyone should have", not as loose as DE's 300 edits autopromote, but the idea back then was pretty indiscriminate. Not sure what the prevailing opinion is these days though. Courcelles 23:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Your comment regarding an amendment request
Hi, you may want to review your comment regarding an amendment request in light of additional evidence posted there. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I knew what the situation was regarding Russavia. For the record, my hesitations here aren't concerning your conduct, but rather his when his time-limited ban runs out. Courcelles 02:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that the problematic behaviour occured solely in the EE topic area, an indefinite topic ban in EE is virtually an indefinite site ban in any case. --Nug (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no, Russavia's disruption was not limited to EE. Courcelles 02:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not, but any disruption outside of EE does not concern me since the majoirty of my edits are confined to EE, thus the iBan is redundant. --Nug (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we please have this discussion where it belongs, the Amendment page, not here? As it stands, I might, despite my general distaste for them, vote to make these Ibans one-way on Russavia, but lifting them seems incredibly like inviting trouble. (While you may edit only in EE, the same is not true for others). Courcelles 02:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've linked this discussion at the Amendment page and agree that it should continue there. As far as I can tell past disruption was always related to the topic of EE, I can't find any evidence of disruption outside that area. --Nug (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
mail
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Either I'm blind as a bat, or it got eaten. Can you send it directly? The address is Courcelleswikigmail.com. Courcelles 18:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are proposing the desysops as alternatives to the admonitions, then we usually signal this in the numbering and the header levels. E.g., if "X admonished" is remedy 3, then "X desysopped" would be 3.1 (rather than 4) and so forth. This is just a matter of form (I'll save my comments on the merits of the proposals for the case pages). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
They're not really alternatives, though. We've got the similar, but different issues here of admin misconduct, and editorial misconduct. (Even though in this particular case the admin tools were required to commit the editorial misconduct.) Courcelles 20:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I assumed you meant your proposals as alternatives based in part on your votes, but it's up to you. See you on the decision page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Review on draft
I would like to have this draft done before the 2012 Summer Olympics, can you please come by and check it out and make the necessary changes? Thank you very much for answering. Osplace 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Happy to take a look after the weekend and before Wikimania. Courcelles 04:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
It's quite important, I can't say what it's about on here as it's from the Police. I've sent it to both the email addresses I have for you. I think that they will need to contact the WMF though, can you please take a look and advise?--5 albert square (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've forwarded on the email to the appropriate person at the WMF and sent the link to the appropriate persons Wikimedia page to the Police. I do hope they manage to resolve this :)--5 albert square (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at [email protected]. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
E-mail doesn't seem to be working
Courcelles,
I tried e-mailing you again, and you apparently didn't get it. I'll give you the cliff notes version - I was part of a discussion with a large off-wiki group on a crusade. After the end of the discussion, one person on the off-wiki site found my real world ID and made some obscene and rude comments. The off-wiki discussions seems to have died, and I don't think I am at risk. I was considering creating a new user account and not disclosing it publicly. Alternately, I could simply change usernames. I don't think I'm keeping this username, as it is linked on-line (off-wiki) to my real ID. What action would you recommend? D O N D E groovilyTalk to me 05:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well,the to main options are this: You can go toWP:CHU and ask a crat to change your username. This has the advantage of keeping your editing history intact, but the downside of any idiot can make the connection by looking at the logs. The other option is a WP:CLEANSTART and telling ONLY the ArbCom about the connection. Courcelles 05:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you know is your e-mail function is not working?
I sent you an e-mail also, I think. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Again??? Okay, I'll turn off all spam filtering and rebuild the rules manually to see if that is behind this. Can you send it again? Courcelles 13:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You probably fixed it already. It was probably whatever the other user already described. I don't think this is a new issue.
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Okay, sent you a reply. Courcelles 05:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
AutoWikiBroswer
Just a notice: Today we uploaded a new AutoWikiBroswer version which corrects a lot of exceptions and other annoying stuff. I suggest you download it from: http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks, Magioladitis. I don't think this gets said enough, but major, major kudos to you and the other programmers of this. Courcelles 05:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Jordyn Wieber
Hi, I'm confused about your recent deletion of information from the article Jordyn Wieber. I read through the BLP page but I don't see how it conflicts with what highschool Wieber attends or her siblings names. Also I think that the information about her family is needed because they are mention in many articles about her and have been shown on past TV coverage and are likely to be shown more during the Olympics. If you disagree and still think that it conflicts with BLP then I'll trust your judgement but I really like the highschool and family info. Malluu12 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
10 Women in 10 Minutes - thank you for minding the gap!
Mind the Gap Award
Courcelles, thank you for participating in 10 Women in 10 Minutes at Wikimania. It was great to see you! I also appreciated you lending a hand in working with the new editor in your group. Your contributions are imperative to making Wikipedia the world's most inclusive and extensive educational resource. Thank you. :) Sarah (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It was a really great idea; all this meta-level talk going on, and carve out some time to actually make a few edits. As far as I'm concerned, this hould become a daily feature at Wikimania. Hope to see you again soon. Courcelles 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikimania
Courcelles, it was great meeting you this past week at Wikimania (even without the nametag).
Thank you. I thought it might be a little tricky due to the edits made to the article, while I was working on my draft. I reckon I've expanded it enough for DYK, don't you? - JuneGloomTalk 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, just realised that I had to have expanded it within the last five days for DYK and I started the draft in November 2011. I'll just go to GAN instead. - JuneGloomTalk 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Your help would be appreciated
I cannot discuss the matter here on your talk page, but if you would email me at [email protected] (or simply post your email address below this message) I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.239.63.5 (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Help needed
Hello Courcelles. I was wondering if you could help sort a case of a page move gone wrong. User:D4nnyw14 wanted to move his sandbox User:D4nnyw14/Dodger Savage into the mainspace - but a redirect was in place at the target Dodger Savage. He accidently moved it to Wikipedia:Dodger Savage and then moved it to User:Dodger Savage, thinking that it would have been moved back to his user space. He then placed speedy tags on the newly created redirect - but he also placed one on "Dodger Savage" in order to free up the redirect and complete the move. But the redirect is not new and has edit history - so could you delete the the "User:D4nnyw14/Dodger Savage" and "Wikipedia:Dodger Savage" and move/history merge "User:Dodger Savage" into "Dodger Savage". It became more complicated than it needed to be..Rainthe 1 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it. The user has moved them page themselves and a another admin deleted the remaining redirect.Rainthe 1 21:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Buttons suitably mashed. Courcelles 21:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out again.Rainthe 1 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Just for the record...
Not having jumped in on Noetica's desysopping straw poll one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the "community" agrees with him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Sarek. At the end of the day, I suspect he would have only been desysopped for a few weeks, but fourth movers in wheel wars should almost always be desysopped, in my opinion, there can be no excuse for being in that position. Courcelles 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Falung Gong 2 proposed decision
There is a vote to close the Falung Gong 2 case which is not yet passing. Your votes could be decisive as there are one proposed finding of fact and three proposed remedies which do not currently pass due to missing arbitrator votes. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure my votes added any clarity! Thanks, though it was on my "get to" list for today. Courcelles 19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles,
I hope you do not mind being contacted in this manner; the rules of engagement here are not clear, and I do not want to behave in a way that violates some unspoken rules of propriety. But I wanted to quickly draw your attention to a couple threads on the FLG 2 case that related to questions or comments you made on the PD page. I wrote some of these specifically in response to your comments, but it was unclear whether you saw them.
Hi, Here you blocked a master puppet - and from what I saw from the language used, rightly so just on that basis. But I did not immediately see a SPI link or a way to see the other puppets in case they come back. Do you recall who the other puppets were? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
At least User:DucerGraphic, though I can't recall if there were others right at this moment (If necessary, the CU log could help me recall, but i don't retain the results of checks, per our privacy policy.) Courcelles 03:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. So there were probably new accounts created for that purpose rather than long term parallel activity. In any case, let us let bygones be bygones... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Mail
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sent a reply back. - JuneGloomTalk 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sent another. - JuneGloomTalk 21:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
And you have two back. Courcelles 01:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Curious
Hey Courcelles. Nothing serious at all, but since I created the Olympics swimming record page, it keeps cropping up on my watch list because of you! This is of interest to me, only because I'm interesting in how you're going about using AWB to fix the links (I think they're just redirects by the way), in such slow time. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Basic find and replace, really, since the hyphen version shouldn't be used. Courcelles
Sure, but why is AWB not doing all the edits in one go rather than dozens of one-off fixes? Just seems a bit inefficient! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much because I suck at programming AWB. I'll see what can be cleaned up. Courcelles
Hi!
Hi, I was hoping that you might consider semi-protecting S. P. Udayakumar and Tyler Cassidy, as there has been a lot of IP vandalism on these articles. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me see what we have going on. Courcelles 06:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
And both protected for a couple months. Courcelles 06:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your ongoing good work! Johnfos (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
One more
The bot moves fast to archive your page, doesn't it? You have one more piece of mail from me. - JuneGloomTalk 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I just sent you another one. - JuneGloomTalk 00:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
On 25 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adrienne Bolland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that French pilot Adrienne Bolland was the first woman to fly across the Andes, doing so after only 40 hours of flight experience? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adrienne Bolland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
As far as I know, there's no rule in the MoS about categories being alphabetized, and none of the tools that manipulate categories pay any attention to what order they are in; new ones go at the bottom. Courcelles 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Summer Olympics Medal Table
Hi Courcelles, I posted here about the formatting for the medal table. Just wanted to give you a heads-up if it wasn't on your watchlist. Thanks! Kingnavland (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it is on my watchlist, though, so we can talk there :) Courcelles 03:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Ding dong!
Apologies for triggering that annoying bright orange 'new messages' bar; there is an email missive from yours truly awaiting your perusal. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Not much of a missive, so you have a quick reply! Courcelles 23:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If what you were seeing was a gray overlay with text, blanking out the pages, that has been dealt with and a purge+refresh should make the pages fine again. 16:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
YGM
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mlpearc (powwow) 22:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Now this is a new bug. Your link takes me to a diff on WT:ACN, but when I click the talk tab to load the current version, I am faced with West Dennis, Massachusetts. Bizarre... Thanks for the note. Courcelles 18:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 02:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
In the Olympic medal table page you reverted my edit with this "explanation": "Undid revision 505730281 by Dodger67 (talk)Goes above the table in every FL medal table we have, for good reason". Well I would like to know exactly what this "good reason" is please?
My reasoning for putting it at the bottom is that it then appears directly below the medal totals where the reader notices "WTF is going on here, why don't these numbers match up?" Putting the explanation above the table for something that only happens waaayy down at the bottom of the list doesn't make good sense to me, particularly if the table itself can be very long. Roger (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Courcelles,
If you have the time, could you make a few small updates related to the silver Olympic medal in men's singles tennis Federer won today? There have been several compaints about the article being not up-to-date on the talk page. Short-term the infobox is probably the most important. Thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Crap. Stupid HotCat apparently doesn't care that it is full protected, and I never noticed. That said, this appears to be an incredibly strange decision... Whatever edit war there was is long over. I'm going to drop this to semi. Courcelles 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Gap9551 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I'll keep my eyes on the page for a while and make sure it doesn't flare up again. Courcelles 19:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Need advice
Hi Courcelles. May I presume on our past acquaintance for a bit of advice? I am considering bringing a case to Arbcom but have never done so (indeed, have never even taken anyone to ANI) but am unsure on how to proceed, or even if I should.
The case regards Youreallycan, who as you may know was formerly Off2riorob, and who is the subject of an increasingly drama-filled Rfc/U [2] which he states he will no longer participate in [3]. In the course of this he has demonstrated some extremes of response that serve to illustrate the issues this user has had over the past 3 years which, again as you may well know, have led to 19 blocks and a failed mentorship. I seek remedial sanctions by Arbcom that cannot be overturned by an administrator, and frankly I prefer a lengthy or permanent ban.
I myself had a run-in with him about 3 years ago, and have been largely trying to avoid interaction ever since. But I find it increasingly difficult to ignore the cycles of block-unblock that mark YRC's tenure, and feel something ought to be done. That something, I feel, is a review by Arbcom of YRC's numerous issues. It may be worth noting that YRC in his previous incarnation ran as a candidate for Arbcom, but failed by a wide margin. Without going on at too great a length regarding his actions at BLP and elsewhere, can you advise on how to proceed, assuming you see a case for Arbcom here at all? By the way, I do not know if such advice would involve you to the point of being unable to rule on the potential case. If so, just delete this and I will understand and seek advice elsewhere. Many thanks, and Make it Funky (I miss your old ID!) Jusdafax 04:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd be more than willing to provide advice on the arbitration process in a general sense, or in particular oddities that come up inside it, but, I'm afraid, in the end analysis, I'm not really comfortable giving answers to this particular query. Courcelles 05:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply though, and my very best wishes, always! Jusdafax 05:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you please take a moment and explain your actions on this page? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:BAN is actually clear, banned users do not normally retain access to their talk page, so the situation as it existed was rat5her unusual. The ongoing edit warring, and Fae's misuse of the page made it a fairly easy removal. Courcelles 19:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you please point to the part of WP:BAN that indicates a user's talk page is supposed to be fully protected during a ban? I did find "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail.", but that is entirely different. I do see there is a chart that says banned users are "usually not allowed" to edit their own talk pages. That's still not the same as protecting the page, as blocking allows for prevention of editing their own talk page. Further, common practice by ArbCom:
User talk:Ludwigs2, talk page not protected, editor can still edit own talk page
User talk:Δ, talk page not protected, editor can still edit own talk page
User talk:Michaeldsuarez, from the Fae case no less, talk page not protected, editor can still edit own talk page
So I'm seeing six editors banned this year by ArbCom other than Fae. In no case were their talk pages protected and in no case were editors blocked in such a way to prevent them from editing their own talk pages. It is not "rather unusual" that his talk page was unprotected. It is your action that is rather unusual. If the concern is edit warring, then pray tell why was KoshVorlon not blocked (4 reversions on Fae's talk page in 17 hours, and he'd been given a final warning on a similar situation just a couple of weeks ago; see User_talk:KoshVorlon#Do_not_edit_anything_in_my_user_space). As to the content of Fae's talk page, User:Wnt seems to have it right with this comment. The material Fae was lately putting on the page is nothing more or less than an appeal to have the publicly available information and attacks upon him removed. Yet, instead of complying with his plea and blanking the case pages as a courtesy (as has been done in other cases), the decision is to protect his talk page and leave the case pages as is? I'm still seeing his real name sprinkled all over the case pages. So why is Fae the bad guy here? How is pleading to have personal information about him and attacks against him removed a "misuse of the page"? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Given you think there is private information involved, please e-mail arbcom-l to continue this conversation. I will not be unprotecting the page (though you might be able to convince a majority of the committee to do so), and private information should not be discussed on wiki. Courcelles 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not I who thinks so, it is Fae, and he placed that request on his talk page. Regardless of the private information issue, you can respond to the rest of this here. Why the protection when every other case this year did not have this? Why the one-off? Why no block or at least warning to KoshVorlon? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
KishVorlon was hardly the only or worst behaved, do blocking him when the page was protected would have been insanely stupid -- the goal of edit warring blocks being to stop the disruption, not punish. If any of the above users abuse their talk page, as Fae was doing by edit warring to keep sockpuppet's personal attacks on that page, they will have it swiftly revoked. Banned users have no entitlement to a talk page, as they are not members of this community at the present time. (Indeed, I'm rather surprised to find the clerks are enacting bans without removing talk page access.) Courcelles 20:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(Lest anyone think it unusual, that banned users are no longer part of the Community is straight off the WP:BANBLOCKDIFF table. Courcelles 20:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
...which I referenced above. As I noted then, I still find no resource indicating the talk page of banned users are to be fully protected. I also note that at the time you protected that talk page, the only restoration Fae was doing was the plea...not the comments themselves. See [4]. That's his last edit to the talk page, some six hours before you decided to protect it. To take the action of refusing the plea, blanking the talk page, and fully protecting is seems rather lacking in protecting Fae's dignity. Why no blanking of the case pages per the plea? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I actually thought at least a couple of the case pages were supposed to have been blanked... let me look into this. Courcelles 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The case is over, all case pages were supposed to have been locked at end of case, as there is absolutely no need for any further edits to ever be made to that page. Courcelles 18:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Is that a new policy? For example the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images case (closed in Feb) pages aren't protected. In any event, I find have found it useful from time to time to {{anchor}} specific sections of historical pages (arbcom cases and various WQA/AN/ANI archives) to refer other editors to in current disputes. Nobody Ent 18:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not done every time -- but there are special cases where it is a good idea. In in this case, it is largely meaningless; there is nothing'/' to anchor, anyway, all the pages I protected are now blank. Courcelles 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Nobody Ent 18:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Jessica Alba
You've had this article under protection for almost 2 years (23 months). I have edited it a lot. I see not very many edits. Many days go by with no edits. Consider ending protection as protection is not the standard thing to do for WP articles. If there is trouble, I can contact you. I look at that article a lot. Spevw (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
A BLP like this isn't supposed to be edited very often. The protection is the very reason there aren't many problems, there were tons every time this has been unprotected, and protection is the clear best option for keeping that page orderly. Courcelles 01:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, i've seen you adding several categories to olympic athletes which is great. But i see you make 3-4-5 edits in a row with the HotCat. You can add those categories in one edit with this function. I don't know if you knew that but that could save you just some time. Kante4 (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Following this clarification by ARBCOM [5] and discussion with user:EdJohnston[6] it seems that warning of involved editor is worth less then warning of an admin and essentially need admin approval in any case.Could you please clarify becouse I understood that the warning could be given by anyone and its enough for WP:DSN activation.You input will be appreciated.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Are we discussing this anywhere actively? (Not seeing an active discussion, I'll answer here) As far as I'm concerned, anyone can give the warning, though an editor should think long and hard before delivering one to the other side of a content dispute, not because the warning is therefore invalid, but because it has a chance to spark even more animosity. 19:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of WP:CREEP, do we have any policies/guidelines/essays/whatever that explains best practices for issuing warnings? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You can look at this as a starting point, although it is addressed primarily to administrators. There is also some guidance contained in the remedies language in a few individual decisions authorizing discretionary sanctions, which I can look up for you if it would be helpful. It might be useful to collect those thoughts in one place and/or incorporate them into the policy page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree because current practice not clear--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Yes, I think having one central place where this is explained would be helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
My own formulation of how I envision is discretionary sanctions working is something like [formulation]. Perhaps we can expand on the thoughts there, which the Committee adopted unanimously, and work them into the standard wording. (And perhaps this discretion should be on a Committee page for greater visibility among the other arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I think there are no real problem to apply WP:DSN on disruptive editors.My only concern is a "warning", if you read my discussion with Ed(linked above) he implied that my warning may not be considered "due warning" because I have not sufficiently explained why the edits of certain user are problematic but the language of sanctions doesn't require this at all its only an option.Moreover if the warning will be given by uninvolved admin there would be probably no scrutiny whatever if the warning is "due" or not.Maybe clarification should be filed?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I did a silly thing and moved my draft of Hampele's article, before checking to see if anyone else had previously created an article for her. Turns out there was an article and it was deleted at AfD. Is it possible for you to check and see how different my version is from the first one? - JuneGloomTalk 21:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I've e-mailed you the old article, so you can see everything that was there. Courcelles 21:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Everything in my version is sourced, plus the actress has appeared in another film and landed a regular role in Neighbours since it was deleted. Do you think it'll be okay? - JuneGloomTalk 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Does this article of a bronze winning 2012 Canadian Olympian have enough web citations so that the lack of citations concern can be removed? Just curious. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it to me, though, of course, more citations can't hurt, there is still uncited information in the article. Courcelles 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I'll remove just the lack of web citations tag. Nothing more. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
Hi Courcelles :) Hope all is going well. I wanted to drop by and let you know about this question at the Teahouse. It's Arbcom related. Thank you :) SarahStierch (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah, looks like the best advice (that arbcom here would be using an ICBM on a mosquito) has been given. That said, the Clerks are always there to help people with the technical side of asking for arbitration, so in future, feel free to point them there. (TO avoid confusing a newbie, I'm responding here.) Courcelles 00:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles. I hope this is the right place to do this. You have protected the page Jessica Ennis I guess due to persistent vandalism, but the protection expires soon. Is it possible to protect a page permanently against vandalism by unregistered users? Jessica Ennis has been subject to extensive vandalism before, during and after the Olympics and it has become very tiresome. Kopii90 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've extended the protection a while, the original length wasn't meant to be definitive, just a "this needs to stop right now, and I'm halfway into bed" thing -- the joys of a last check of your watchlist before you retire for the evening. Courcelles 14:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - that should help! Kopii90 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it correct for this person's article to have an Olympic medal listed under 'Honours' and 2 separate medals listed under medal record? I see under other wiki articles of Canadian soccer players that all the person's medals are listed under honours. If you think you can correct this situation where there are 2 medal templates, please feel free to merge all the medals under the 'honours' template. Best Regards and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I would consolidate the two medal templates into one place, but am really indifferent on where it should be. But splitting them up like this is useless. Courcelles 17:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope you are successful in doing so in your free time. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Advice/opinion please.
Hi, I am asking you because you closed an AfD some time ago as merge, marked the article as such. This was subsequently ignored by an editor and the article is now renominated for AfD. This is for explanation only. However, one editor has made the comment, "An old AfD can not be used as a precedent for the result of this AfD. You should know better. End of discussion." Can it be used as a precedent. Pointing me to any guidelines etc would be appreciated. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion and to my knowledge an old AfD can hardly be used as a precedent for how to close a current AfD even if it is about the same exact subject. A new AfD should take into consideration any new updates and facts so referring to an old AfD result is in my opinion not a particular strong reason for deletion. And yes I have to disagree with how that particular AfD was closed but that is my personal opinion which I am perfectly entitled too just as user Richhoncho is entitled to his. Somehow however user Richhoncho seem to be under the impression that I am not entitled to that opinion. Which for me seems a bit harsh.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This side discussion is unhelpful. If you wish Courcelles to comment openly, then the discussion should take place at the current AFD, not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, My question was a general question, "where's the guidelines?" and as such would relate to any AfD subsequently ignored by any editor. If my question is construed as canvassing votes, then I apologise. That was not intended. If my question had been answered as requested at the relevant Afd, then I would not have asked the question here. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
In a general sense, I don't think there IS a hard and fast rule here. That said, I would think the way to contest a merge close would be at DRV, rather than filing another AFD. That said, if another AFD is already filed, no real harm in letting it run and a keep close would effectively overrule the first AFD. (Due to attribution reasons, one would need to be careful before closing such a situation as a straight delete, as some content may have already been merged, making deletion not really an option.) Courcelles 17:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, just for clarification, there was a merge AfD Dec 2010 finally converted to a merge in May 2011, and reverted a month or so later. It has since been listed twice for AfD deletion (1 no consensus, and one ongoing) without reference to the previous merge AfD. When I am told there is a guideline (especially in such a fraught AfD as this one) that says previous AfDs don't count, I am inclined to ask eleswhere when I don't get a straight answer. Thanks for your time, much appreciated. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Heads up
this edit among similar reverts by 20 or so other editors (including more than several by myself) likely to be enumerated at WP:ANI. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Fun, fun, though I have to say, I stand by that edit. To deliberately tell our readers that a ć will sometimes be written as "c" does nothing but insult their intelligence. Courcelles 17:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Mm. I truly wish it hadn't gone to to ANI, but unfortunately now it has I fear the inevitable triviality will bring a WP:TLDR close followed by a "this was referred to ANI, and these ledes were found to be perfectly okay" license. So rather than the (guillotine?) topic ban advocated by Joy(Shallot) I have proposed a short focussed targeted ANI instruction on one User not to keep editwarring those specific ledes on top of those specific BLPs. That's one outcome... Either that or a green light and we award barnstars for doing it to Renée Zellweger too... In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Something weird is going on...
Hey. I spotted 81.99.46.114(talk·contribs·WHOIS) adding various unsourced/disruptive edits to British soap opera articles earlier. I checked their contribs and found they had edited User:Daniel Postlethwaite's user and talk pages. They don't appear to be the only IP to have done this and I'm not quite sure what's going on. The situation seems similar to this one earlier in the year involving User:Sheep 2009. - JuneGloomTalk 21:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking into this, I'm also puzzled if this is some form of joke, or just regular trolling... Courcelles 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just re-reading your comment at the last RfC about PC never being better than semi-protection, and remembering that I wanted to ask for details, but forgot to. I'd appreciate any insights you want to offer on my talk page any time; I've mentioned some of the issues I have with Pending Changes in various posts at WT:PC2012. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the talk page in the next few days. Bottom line, though, editor time is the single most precious resource we have at this stage, and I can't see a way PC doesn't just suck it up like a sponge for almost no gain, whereas semi doesn't require folks to clean up after a bunch of IP's. (Genuinely useful edits by IP's are really rather rare, even if only 1 in 5 edits are vandalism.) Courcelles 01:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible Error on Pete Sampras Career Statistics Page
Hi. Look, I am new to Wikipedia and have no interest in editing information myself, so I thought I might contact you regarding the page "Pete Sampras Career Statistics." As a hobby, I built an Excel document that uses data from ATPtennis.com to generate tables similar to that on Wikipedia. As such, I often go to Wikipedia to double check the numbers my formulas are generating.
I believe that there are some errors under Sampras's career "Titles-Finals." Adding up the Wikipedia numbers, we get 86 career finals (1990=4, 1991=6, 1992=6, 1993=10, 1994=12, 1995=9, 1996=9, 1997=8, 1998=7, 1999=4, 2000=4, 2001=4, 2002=2), when we know Sampras made 88 career finals. According to my research, the actual numbers should be (1991=8, 1992=7, 1993=9) for the following years. That +1 for 1991, +1 for 1992, and -1 for 1993, which adds to 88.
For 1991, I have 4-8 (he won the Year-End Championships, Indianapolis, Lyon, and L.A., but lost in the finals of Manchester, Phily, TMS Cincinnati, and TMS Paris). For 1992, I have 5-7 (he won TMS Cincinnati, Phily, Indianapolis, Lyon, and Kitzbuhel, but lost in the finals of the U.S. Open and Atlanta). For 1993, I have 8-9 (the only event he lost was the Year-End Championships). It is important to note that the Wiki list of career titles and career finals matches my numbers, rather than those in the Wiki table.
Also, I have different numbers for tournaments played by year:
Total, Wiki says: 266, while I have: 274 (difference of 8)
1988, Wiki=9, I have=10 (+1)
1992, Wiki=21, I have=22 (+1)
1993, Wiki=23, I have=24 (+1)
1994, Wiki=18, I have=19 (+1)
1996, Wiki=17, I have=18 (+1)
1999, Wiki=13, I have=14 (+1)
2000, Wiki=12, I have=13 (+1)
2001, Wiki=15, I have=16 (+1)
Are you available to do a CU on a couple users? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, file the evidence here or at SPI and I'll take a look. Courcelles 02:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK....Got a possible sock for User:DreamMcQueen (a sock for User:Rollosmokes) in the form of User:Oogie Pringle. Lots of edits to TV station pages (his usual haunts), currently engaged in an edit war with me (the person who got him blocked as DreamMcQueen) and currently editing Reunion (The Temptations album) and other Temptations pages, all lasted edited by DreamMcQueen. The Oogie Pringle account was created on August 1, DreamMcQueen was indef blocked on July 31. Could be a big coincidence, but I don't believe in 'em. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
DreamMcQueen was indef blocked by User:Dennis Brown, who appears to be offline. Just some FYI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't believe in coincidences? Don't blame you, neither do I. Confirmed match between these two, and blocked. Courcelles 02:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC) (Also, kudos on the concise statement that explains why you are suspicious. If everyone at SPI made the same quality requests, it would work much smoother. Courcelles 02:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC))
Liberal helpings of G5 have been applied. Courcelles 02:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Beautiful, now we have something to watch. If those are recreated by a single, we can CU the account that creates them. :) Thanks for your help on this one, much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Meh, not sure recreating one of these articles would be a sure-fire case for a CU, I suspect at least a few of these albums are actually notable in the end. A new account showing up to create them again, though, would be suspicious. Courcelles 17:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I think all of the albums are, and if an established (non-sock) editor were to create them, I would have no problem, but if it were a new editor who just happened to create them again, my SockDar (patent pending) might go off. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I may have another sock for Rollosmokes, but then again I am not sure. IAmCoolForever2023. The account was made on August 19th, but the user seems to know a great deal about moving articles, which they have (and all of them are really wrong). The moves made are without consensus, take the articles off their legal and correct titles and move them to titles not agreed upon by the community, some of them are down right vandalism. I am leaning toward this being a sock of Rollosmokes because most of the edits are in the TV Networks area (another one of his haunts), but it might also be a vandal who operates off Dakota Central Telecommunications Cooperative or (DakTel) IPs. That user likes to vandalize TV Network pages as well. Could you take a look? I might also need help with the moving of everything back where it belongs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Suspicious, yes, but the CU magic 8-ball is returning Unrelated here. Courcelles 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
On both Rollosmokes and the DakTel range? Could you help with the clean up? I can revert most of the edits, but the moves I can't. They should all go back where they were. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
WEll, it isn't best practice, sure, but when there is that legitimate feeling of harassment, it can be justified under plain common sense, as long as the person behind the account is VERY careful not to overlap and even appear to double vote. Courcelles 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Nationalistic POV pushing... joy. Let me take a look. Courcelles 17:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
CU Check
Hey Courcelles, might have a sock for User:IAmCoolForever2023 in the form of Radioman2012 who made some very bold moves on some radio station pages. It is same moves (this time in the radio department) that IAmCoolForever2023 made with the TV network articles. User:Acroterion brought this to my attention (though he already indef blocked "Radioman2012"), so I am just checking. I would also ask if you could run this against the range used by User:Oogie Pringle and User:DreamMcQueen (the two socks of User:Rollosmokes). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Your block of 198.228.0.0/16
Hi. We've had three UTRS tickets about the block you set on the 30 August. Do you have access to UTRS? If so they are #3353, #3393 and #3395. Could you comment on the tickets? Also DeltaQuad's asked you to drop him a line. Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... I can't remember if I do or not. Sounds like I should, though. Courcelles 14:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Busy range, so much so that I can't pull up beyond a fortnight ago, who knew Wichita had this many people. (Though why so many people are requesting accounts on their car phones I do not know). It's a large range, but there's no possible subdividing it, it is either the whole /16 or nothing. Courcelles 15:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You do have a UTRS account, but you don't seem to have used it. Secretlondon (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page. Message added 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page. Message added 00:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Courcelles. Please can you consider unprotecting Esther Vergeer? It looks like you protected it nearly a year ago (due to three IP edits that look like they were probably "good faith" sockpuppetry). Anyway, I'd guess that threat has passed, and I just noticed that some encyclopedic edits are not getting made due to a combination of the semi-protect and some editor's desire to clear the backlog without actually implementing the change!?! --99of9 (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Correction: actually, I see that the edit was made. But I still think protection is no longer necessary (and am still confused why the edit-request got closed by an editor who apparently didn't care if the edit had been done). --99of9 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the sockmaster that was troubling this article is actually still quite a problem. The history of that article unprotected, was pretty much one banned user making tons of edits to well, lots of articles on a central theme to harass another user. Courcelles 06:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. --99of9 (talk) 13:04, 4 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
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2436submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.
On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUserTSU
04:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Pre-rangeblock CU request
Per this discussion on my talk page, and my response to the user in question, can you see if there are any registered users active on the 212.178.240.0/21 range who might be adversely impacted by a rangeblock? (If there are, send me an email to keep it confidential). Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a safe range to block AO, though making it a hard block can be done if necessary, I don't see any reason to start there. (Though how is Battle of Košare relevant? It hasn't been touched in a month...) Courcelles 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The user in question seems to feel this guy will IP-hop. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Using an AO block will only allow editing IF this fellow has an account already. IP-hopping within this /21 would no longer do him any good. Courcelles 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
AC request
My question "Are some editors more equal?" is here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The record will reflect I was one of tow arbs that wanted to take the Raul654/Br'er Rabbit case, and continue to think the majority erred in declining to open that case. Courcelles 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I remember that. I tried to concentrate this discussion on where I asked my question first, but once you invited me here: In case you don't know me, I am the one who helped move a Beethoven piano sonata, presenting "facts and myths". I don't believe there's a "Raul654/Br'er Rabbit case". In the case requested, Br'er Rabbit supplied the facts. - I learned something new today: that an arb has to be taught how to deal with an edit conflict. Do some arbs need to be taught how to read a sequence of diffs? - Do they watch a talk page where they are compared with the blind? - Are they blind? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no pun was intended, I saw the remark about "vision" only after I posted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That's out of line, see section below.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I suspect that quite a few people took exception to being referred to as "blind" in the context that it was originally presented. — Ched : ? 20:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's back up. Your comment on NYB's talk page mentioned "I remember a recent case that looks similar to me, admin using tools when involved, giving no comment. It looks similar but was treated differently." I assumed this was the recentish filing requesting a case on the conduct of Raul654 and Br'er Rabbit. Am I correct, or is there another matter you are referring to here? Courcelles 21:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe Gerda means that the requested case was about the "Featured Article Process". You're going to whack EP, but refused to look as Raul's misconduct. But there's an election coming; we get it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Raul backed (reluctantly) down in the face of community pressure, he didn't take his bat and ball home. Also, half of those giving evidence wanted you turfed, so perhaps I wouldn't bang on about it all that loudly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Which begs a few questions: Was there not evidence presented of admin. abuse? Of the diffs offered in support of BR being "turfed", how much of it was valid for any sanctions? You say "he didn't take his bat and ball home", and yet looking at the edit contribution history - I'd have to beg to differ. For that's exactly what he did. — Ched : ? 21:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
@Elen; I stopped being concerned about sanctions a long time ago. My concern is what's right for the project, and I'll say what I believe without regard for any blowback. If I get turfed, it's a loss for the project and a lot of people know it. See, for example, what I did to Rodrigues Solitaire, today, and how it was appreciated. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you're going to hint that people are hypocrites about these two matters, I'll just point out one final time I was perfectly willing to investigate that prior dispute as a case. I can't speak for anyone else, including the majority. Courcelles 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I wanted to be nice. But you keep asking. Facts and myths. Br'er Rabbit supplied facts in the case mentioned. Raul456 compared the arbs to the blind, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
You are missing Courcelles' point. There are 15 arbitrators, and we vote on things, and we frequently disagree with each other. Courcelles voted to accept the FAC case and was outvoted by other arbitrators who voted not to accepted. Therefore, it's not reasonable to blame (or credit) him for the fact that the case was not accepted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) You are missing my point: I see no case (see above). I see diffs about facts (see above). I see a statement that speaks for itself, please follow the link "to the blind", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Gerda and Br'er. Stop whining. Reformulate the case and bring it back as a straight request for desysopping, rather than the melange it was. For my part, a refusal on that case as formatted was without prejudice to bringing a desysop case if there was enough evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"In light of his refusal to acknowledge and discuss the concerns" - read in the current case - looks to me similar, - is that whining? I asked a simple question, I was invited here and felt/feel not quite understood. Stopping, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you unaware of all this, which preceeded the RfAr. I see concerns being discussed here. I see Raul accepting (eventually) that the community consensus differed from his own take on things. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
New day. Aware of "all this", - the myths, you mean? I redact the beginning a bit:
"Jack Merridew, user:Br'er Rabbit, has been harassing me for the last six months or so. ...
For the last few weeks, it's gotten especially bad at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, a page which exists for the sole purpose to help me coordinate requests for main page featured article scheduling. Jack has been trolling[citation needed] there something fierce over the last few days. ...
I know I'm not the only one he's harassing.[citation needed] He seems to go from harassing one person to the next[citation needed] with alarming frequency.[citation needed] I think it's about time we discussed a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)"
End of quote. I was told that Polite is irrelevant, - but you (all) know that, right? - as part of the facts Br'er Rabbi(t) provided, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
ps: trolling? "Perhaps it's not to late to finally look at the facts from reliable sources." dated 21 August, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x??? .. I wasn't trying to "blame" anyone for anything. — Ched : ? 22:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
@Elen. ArbWorld has long picked elements of requests as the case they accept. I put up a fair bit of evidence. I know that request was a mess. Arbitration Enthusiasts are known for that. I think a straight de-sysop request would be grand. Do recall how I've been treated when I've made requests myself, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That last is a fair point. Though if Courcelles - who certainly carries no torch for you - would accept the case, then who knows. But can you get six admins to support you (or carry your pall, depending on how it goes). Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
possible typo
Just fyi, I think you might have typoed a word in your vote. I think incomparable should be incompatable?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I'll blame my awful vision, thanks. Courcelles 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Mail
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
A reply in 12 minutes is good. Ignoring a valid question from someone who is not able to raise it elsewhere for 2.5 months is not. Is there any reason why you have not answered to User:Russavia's emails? He has asked you to clarify what exactly you meant when you said "Russavia's disruption was not limited to EE".[7]Nanobear (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm? Russavia has long been on auto-discard on my mail client. At any rate, eh hardly needs me to tell him where he has been disruptive, as he has been disruptive for years. Courcelles 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Sent you another email. - JuneGloomTalk 00:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you see this? - JuneGloomTalk 21:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, accusations not backed up by evidence are personal attacks. It seems clear that you have a personal grudge with Russavia and that it would therefore be advisable for you to recuse yourself from any ArbCom matters related to him. Nanobear (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No. He is disruptive. This is not a personal attack, it is patently obvious fact. He is not banned for a year without good reason. Courcelles 23:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles, how would you feel about lifting to semi on Whale (you semi'd it in October 2010) to see if it's still needed? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
With this history why would we want to waste everyone's time? The PC trial in 2010 was a utter disaster here, too much vandalism, nothing worth keeping, and looks like that's pretty much status quo for six years. Courcelles 02:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thought it'd be worth asking - you never know 'till you try. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Courcelles... I hesitated to post this comment after seeing that someone just asked you to lift protection on a page and it was declined, LOL. Nonetheless, I think it is merited on another article you page protected in which the editors have taken up the issue for resolution. I'd like to ask that you consider lifting the protection on Dishonorable Disclosures on the basis of this talk page discussion:
I mistakenly thought the protection was set to expire 10 September 2012 at 05:25 UTC, and I see now that it's actually 12 September 2012 at 0:525 UTC (edit=sysop instead of move=sysop), hence my request. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Unprotected, though how on Earth the edit and move protection differed by two days escapes me. Courcelles 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The edit/move protection thing surprised me too, but I just figured it was my mistake and maybe the settings were as intended... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed renaming of new IAAF medalists category
Courcelles, I have proposed your new IAAF medalists category for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 12. As the creator of the category, please express your opinion at CfD. I have watched your category work with interest; this is the first time I have felt the need to quibble. Thanks for all you do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
NO problem, it is an interesting question, and I've commented there. Courcelles 18:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Courcelles. Just read your comment. Having now found the IAAF category tree, I note another (in)consistency problem. Some of the parent championship categories have "IAAF" in their title; several do not. None of the subcategories have IAAF in their title. Regardless of whether the parent category is title "IAAF World Championships in Athletics" or simply "World Championships in Athletics," wouldn't it make more sense to place "medalists" after the event title, rather than before? The result would either be "IAAF World Championships in Athletics medalists" or "World Championships in Athletics medalists." This would also be consistent with how the medalist categories for the Olympics and Pan American Games have been named previously. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Olympics are one thing, but world championships seem different, see Medalists at the World Figure Skating Championships, ]]:Category:Medalists at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships]], Whther they should be or not, there is a disconect between multi-sport event medalists, and single-sport world championships ones. Courcelles 19:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Opinion requested
Since I know that you edit the areas in question, I would like to point you to a open RfC that I think your opinion would be helpful I honestly do not think this is considered canvassing, I hope. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 17:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't edit music articles at all, actually, CFD and a little anti-vandal work aside. Courcelles 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Think a hand is needed
This new user is adding political information with what appears to be false refs. As far as we can tell re: Jo Stafford, the page added is a reference page with no information about political stances. The user added similar text and possible false refs to the following bios:
Sorry but this looks like a possible "sock hop" with political intent to me. I've removed the Jo Stafford information, but wonder what to do about the others. Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Holy sockfarm, Batman. I found fifty-three socks, all now blocked. Courcelles 18:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That gives new meaning to the term "dirty laundry" :-). Can I help by cleaning up the bios of those I mentioned? Thanks, We hope (talk)
Please! All my blocks at 1853 UTC are him, and all edits are strongly suspect on BLP grounds and need removal. Courcelles 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll start working from your list, then. We hope (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Whew! Finally got all that wash done ! :-) We hope (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Interesting to note, the sockmaster had more socks Commons-side. Let me or another CU know if you see anything that rings this same bell, would you? This is a years-long problem, looking at the logs. Courcelles 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Will do-the ironic thing was that the socks were posting notes to various persons' talk pages (mine yesterday), asking for editors to look for photos for articles and upload them. We hope (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, my good man. Let's hope the vigilance is not needed, however. Courcelles 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Natalie Gulbis
Thank you to take care of the american/english Natalie Gulbis' page. I do the French page. Do not hesitate if you need information.
See you.
May I nominate 2012 Summer Olympics medal table for featured list?--Lucky102 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't think it is ready yet, maybe it'll be ready by the end of the weekend, but it isn't right now. Courcelles 16:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
That's alright. --Lucky102 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe now?--Lucky102 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Pardon my bluntness, but if you think that page, as it stands is a FL candidate, you need to re-read WP:WIAFL. It isn't up to spec. Courcelles 00:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
What would you do to improve it?--Lucky102 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI... There was a message left on the talk page asking for restoration of this long deleted article. When you closed the AfD, you said that you would restore it upon request. There was a request for restoration a few weeks after you closed the AfD, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Meh, restore it if you like, but looking it now not remembering the 2010 AFD, the old article is ringing the copyvio alarm in my head. Courcelles 23:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to restore it, just passing along a message that I saw while cleaning up orphaned talk pages. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Long-distance swimmers
Courcelles, as you may have noticed, I've been working to clean up the American Olympic swimmer biographies, including, among other things, a uniform update of their categories based on the current swimmer categorization scheme you've been implementing. I would like to make a suggestion for consistency based on my observations. A category for "long-distance swimmers" has been created, effectively creating another "stroke" category to go with backstroke, butterfly, freestyle and medley categories. Given that you have created categories for American male and female swimmers based on these "strokes," would it not make sense to add another for "American male long-distance swimmers" and its female counterpart? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Id there are enough bios that would fit, then, yeah, creation makes sense. Courcelles 15:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Water fluoridation controversy
Hi.
I see you locked the Water fluoridation controversy article.
Would you please read and put your input in the discussed talk page about the topic that created the whole confrontation. both sides have explained their point of view
Just curious, am I allowed to request REVDEL for revs in my userpage? If so, I'd like all the revisions in my userpage (hist) to be revdeled.-Qxukhgiels (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... I've done something that is valid that I think has the same effect; I've deleted your user page, and restored only the most recent revision. This has the same general effect as a revdel would have. Courcelles 23:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Where's category "Grammy Awrads winners" for two italians athlete?
The task AWB did was the one I wanted, the edit summary was a misclick from a task a few weeks ago that I didn't catch right away. Oops. Courcelles 20:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That article has only taken me a year to complete. I'm trying to finish all of my drafts, but some are harder than others. Take User:JuneGloom07/List of accolades received by Atonement (film) for instance, I've struggled with writing the lead ever since I finished the table. - JuneGloomTalk 00:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
198.228.217.159 has asked for information about a range block you performed as a checkuser. I am not sure what you can tell them but I told them I would let you know about the question. GBfan 04:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Dang it, this range is problematic. There are lots of account re quests on it, but at least one major problem. Let's try an "unblock and monitor weekly" approach. If things get bad again, it'll have to be reblocked. Courcelles
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2436 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Dolf
Hello Courcelles. Last night I tried to create a Dolf page, but the title seems to be protected. Yours was the last name in a trail of article deletion records. I have created a page Dolf (disambiguation) which you can verify is bona fide, but the page really should be called Dolf. When I try to move my page to Dolf, I get the message "You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation". Any chance you could move the page for me? Cheers — Hebrides (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I've unprotected Dolf, the old AFD was about some form og fame, rather than a disambig page. (For the record, I was the first entry in the deletion log, not the most recent) You should be able to move the page now. Courcelles 18:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've moved the page. Sorry, I read the deletions list backwards – I erroneously thought the most recent would be last in the list. Best wishes — Hebrides (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is where to come, or if such a request is even permitted, especially in light of my asking this on User talk:AGK with no response, but here goes. I'm currently involved in a discussion with a variable IPv6 editor that I think is from the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF. Given this user's attitude towards another editor on Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman) as well as his/her activity(or at least, activity from within the same range) on the article itself, I suspect s/he is the same user who once was blocked for harassment and personal attacks against the other editor. However, when confronted, s/he denies this. Is it permitted to use Checkuser to find out whether or not it's the same editor? If not, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Thanks, Jonathanfu (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Everyone involved here is an IP. So while I could checkuser them, it wouldn't tell me anything actually useful -- the normally most useful information from a CU is the IP's a username is editing from. Here, that's already public knowledge, so if the range matches up, and the behaviour does, then you already know everything I would learn by going into the CU screen. (I would be able to see if they were using the same user agent, but that won't decide this case, the behaviour will.) Courcelles 02:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess I was thinking checkuser was some magic tool. Yeah, all the IPv6 edits on that talk page are, by his own claim, all him. Thanks for your help. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 13:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Can you give me the subject header? I can't seem to find it, but I've also got no idea what I'm searching for. Courcelles 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I sent it again. Its heading is SPI. Ankh.Morpork 19:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
And you have a reply. Courcelles 19:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the much needed semi-protection request for John Smith (explorer) for three months. As you requested, I am looking for former request but so far I have not found any. Anyway, thanks so much for this! It is much needed. Mugginsx (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I know this page has been semi'ed before, likely more than a few times, but it totally eluded me what title that protection could have been under -- but protection logs have never moved with pages, they stay where they are, furthering this confusion. Courcelles 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I have counted 383 definite vandalism attempts since Feb 2006 but there are more that editors removed but used different language such as "repeating" what the edit was that they removed, which show to be vandalism. Just doing a search for pp, I could not find a past page protection. It is probably there, using different language perhaps? I'm starting to get dizzy looking through the edit history but there is more that 383 certified vandalism attempts. I will search for pp using different language when my eyes stop crossing!
Could not find any previous protection - I did find where you reverted vandalism 8 March and 5 April 2010 - others did the same throughout. However, I do not see page protection under the various words I entered in search.
I'll keep an eye on it, but protecting a talk page is a very last resort type of thing, one vandal should just be blocked if he continues, rather than protecting the talk page. Courcelles 21:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Accolades
Someone just added the results of the International Online Film Critics' Poll to List of accolades received by Inglourious Basterds. I've never heard of the group, their website is hosted by Google Sites and I can't find any other sources mentioning them (they aren't even on List of film awards). I'm not sure whether to keep the results or remove them. What do you think? - JuneGloomTalk 23:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
(I've reverted, as I don't see any notability (or even proof it is a real award) in this. Courcelles 23:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Revdel needed
Hi Courcelles, could you please revdel this edit? One of my schoolmates decided it'd be funny to add to the pre-existing vandalism by defaming me. Cheers, James(Talk • Contribs) • 5:17pm • 07:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much! :) James(Talk • Contribs) • 12:08am • 14:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Urncoleman on enwp, User:BrunoDubs on Commons and the IP user-in-question are one and the same, having looked through the pages both frequented and edited. Same editing style etc. That and the owner of the account was the first to like the post on my Facebook wall. James(Talk • Contribs) • 12:43am • 14:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, Urncoleman and BrunoDubs uploaded the same photos to Commons, the metadata confirms both accounts are operated by the same user. James(Talk • Contribs) • 12:46am • 14:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
If we need a CU, can you show me the clear path to how they are plausibly related? Thanks. Courcelles 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
How can we ever thank you, for the courage to begin the block of Br'er, who was involved in so many counter-productive activities. Although perhaps meaning well, at some level, his approach devastated major improvements, and trashed articles viewed by hundreds of thousands of readers. See details: proposal. I cannot thank you enough. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles. Your protection of the Jessica Ennis page expired on October 15 and vandalism has immediately restarted. Please could you protect it again? Kopii90 (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Done for 3 months. Courcelles 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles. Thank you for your alternative motion. Would you also add that Malleus can discuss RfA at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum? This would allow for discussions such as this one so interested users can understand more about the thought process behind his votes. This happened at a recent RfA, where Malleus felt uncomfortable with further discussion there. Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd have no objection one way or another. As a "keeping order" issue, anyone that goes to Malleus' talk page to talk RFA should know the possibility of incivility or drama or whatnot. Maybe ask this on the page and see if anyone can think of a reason its a bad idea? I'm dead tired, and may be missing something... Courcelles 05:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Courcelles. I've included this discussion under my statement. Cunard (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration
Courcelles,
When I saw this I realised that I had never apologised for the mistake I made earlier this year by supporting your recall. I truly apologise and realise now that your actions were, whilst perhaps something I would not have done myself, nonetheless perfectly acceptable, and, in a sense, courageous. Opposing this motion was undoubtedly the right decision to make and one that bolsters my confidence in you as an arb, in a time of drama when that confidence has been regretably lost in others. I understand if you still bear a grudge against me for my mistake and feel free to disregard this post if you wish.... I'm rambling now but I just wanted to express my gratitude for the level-headedness I have seen from you and NYB and a couple of others in the debacle and I wish you the best for your re-election this december.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 23:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank you, good fellow. AS to a grydge? If you hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have made that connection at all. No hard feelings at all. Courcelles 03:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
As the drafter of Malleus motion #2, I think, you might want to look at my attempt to interpret the wording of the RFA topic ban in seven situations against your intentions, and see whether my understanding is right (and if not, whether clarification of the motion is needed). Thanks, BencherliteTalk 22:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I just got back from 24+ hours without internet, and the reading I need to do is huge, and the energy is sapped from moving house... tomorrow, if the concentration levels fail me tonight. Courcelles 22:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem - just trying to avoid problems of interpretation later if possible! BencherliteTalk 22:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, scratch pad here...
1) Correct, violation, as I intended to get Malleus out of discussions at RFA, without disenfranchising.
2) Agreed. Much like an editor topic banned with relation to, say, Macedonia can't discuss Macedonia on their talk page.
3) Meh, not sure what to do about that one, though he could edit the question asked in response to the query, perhaps if it needed clarification or something similar.
4) Very similar to 3, again, the best solution seems to me to edit the question to address the concern.
5) Hmm... I'd tend to allow a follow-up question within reason. (Now you're seeing what I realised even as I posted it, it isn't a perfect motion. A full topic ban would be easier to enforce, but as a philosophical matter, I struggle with that idea)
6) Fair? Maybe not, but I struggle to see a solution. Yeah, he can't comment, but that's not entirely differently than any other topic banned editor who gets mentioned on a talk page somewhere covered by the topic ban. (It is more likely here, but this is actually a not infrequent problem with topic bans in general)
7) Generally, people shouldn't be baiting other editors. As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying "you get the admins you get, no opinions from you" but still having them be a member of the community. (That's not policy or anything, the Committee could prevent someone from !voting, I just don't agree with doing it) There's no perfect solution, (this motion absolutely isn't! This was more my "Banning him isn't a good idea, what could fix the problem Isarra raised?" scratchpad, because we needed to start thinking about other things pronto. Courcelles 04:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You will be able to edit the page after your account has made ten edits and existed for 96 hours. The article's history is entirely of school-child vandalism, so I cannot unprotect it. Courcelles 02:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Biel
Did you re-introduce Timberlake [8] by accident, or did you mean to do that? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope, complete mistake. I was looking through the vandalism and thought I had found a clean point, and then protected, and never noticed your minute-prior reversion. Courcelles 04:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought that was probably it, but I wanted to be sure. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Lolo Jones
Hi. I noticed you reverted an unsourced addition by an IP editor about Lolo Jones making the U.S. bobsled team. The edit was incorrect that she had already made the Olympic team. However, she has made the larger team roster for the upcoming season. I've added the correct information with reliable sourcing. I just wanted to give you a heads-up. --JamesAM (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Sandy
I noticed your comment about Sandy. Good luck, and stay safe. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've got power tonight, but I'm fully expecting to either wake up tomorrow morning without it, ow lose it during the day. (If Newyorkbrad is at home, he's going to be in a similar boat. Nothing to be done but ride it out.) Courcelles 23:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hope you will be safe and have power during and after the storm. I live in Hartford so I am hopping that power will not go out where I am *fingers cross* . Best, Jonatalk to me 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
With any luck, CT should get spared the worst of this mess. At least it is only a category 1, my only other time riding out a hurricane it was a cat 5 monster. Courcelles 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Eh I'm not too scared of Sandy, its nothing what I went through back in my Florida days with 3 hurricanes in two months. Well, South CT won't be too lucky as for us in the northern parts since they are more closer to the Long Island Sound. Best, Jonatalk to me 00:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
My best wishes to you and yours for an easy time of it. Jusdafax 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Will do. I'm not on the coast, so the concerns here are pretty much rain, power lines down, trees down, etc. So more like a two-day thunderstorm than a full hurricane, but enough to batted down the hatches. Courcelles 01:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep your head down and your feet dry Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd recently seen this article ("Ventana Medical gets Congressional props"), and noticed the Ventana Medical Systems Wikipedia page had been deleted. With this refernce, can you undelete? I haven't edited much, but I'm happy to write/research if needed. thanks --2007Locust (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm without power, and can't see deleted pages anyhow from this account. Can you flag down another admin and ask them to do whatever they think is best? Thanks. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Will do, and good luck getting your power back!--2007Locust (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Rschen. Courcelles 02:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Earning medals
Hey Courcelles. :) You're a sport editor I really respect given all the category work you do. Is it non-neutral to say some one "earned" a medal? I've never heard of this ever and don't see it as in anyway violating WP:NPOV. It doesn't appear in any sport style guide that I've seen. Do you have any insight? --LauraHale (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"Earned a medal" isn't a phrasing that sounds natural to my ear ("won a medal" strikes me as more natural), but I don't see any NPOV problems with the earned phrasing. Courcelles 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
TFcon article reconsideration
Hello, I was wondering what I do to get the article TFcon considered overturning it's deletion. I have had it moved to my userspace, and continued to add references to the article which I think proves it is notable. There are currently 8 television interviews and 6 print and and online news articles from reliable sources covering TFcon over the years. These are from radio stations, TV channels, major trade publications. I think it proves that TFcon has reliable sources and is notable. Please let me know what I can do to get this article undeleted. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Help updating SPI
Hello Courcelles -
I was hoping you could help me address some harassment I've been subject to lately. Some details are at User talk:EdJohnston#Re:, but to sum up, I get hounded every two or three weeks by a (different) account with an anti-gay username that follows me around and reverts my edits (regardless of content), and while each of these typically gets blocked, I'm hoping to get a rangeblock to prevent it from continuing to happen. WilliamH, the checkuser that worked on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Condemns Homosexuality, is now retired and suggested I ask you. Slightly complicated because a number of the offensive usernames have been oversighted, as I mention at EdJohnston's talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, interesting. Yeah, only those of us CU's who are alos OS'ers can really help here. Let me see what I can find. Courcelles 17:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you e-mail me the names you know that have been used within the last three months? That thread on EdJohnson's talk page doesn't seem to exist, and the PU is stale by a year. (CU results only go back three months) Thanks. Courcelles 17:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Having looked into this, to make a long-story short, and per WP:BEANS, the sooner someone finding such a sock flags down a CU, the more we'll be able to do about it. Courcelles 06:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Note
Bishonen removed your reasons for removing talk page access from user talk:Penyulap. I've reverted/restored them. My understanding is that a blocking admin explaining a block (or parts of a block) is common practice (and actually is good practice afaik), and doesn't require such comments to be "in" a template. - jc37 01:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I told Courcelles that myself higher up on this page, and wrote in the edit summary that I had told him; but I guess you love posting notes, Jc37. Anyway, that is good practice in an ordinary block case, yes, but this wasn't quite ordinary: it was a blanked and fully protected page, adorned by a single post; a rather bad-tempered scolding. Should that be reverently preserved for the ages as a motto or device atop an otherwise empty page? I think not. Bishonen | talk 02:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Hold on... WHY did this page blank? I used Twinkle to leave the template, and somehow the page totally blanked. Odd... that wasn't a conscious choice. Courcelles 02:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Huh... I had a feeling it was a Twinkle thing, and it was. No idea why that would be a desirable default... (but I haven't issued a indef block notice in a long while, most of my blo9cks these days being short or socks) Okay, that won't happen again, though as the page was full of trolling, I'm not inclined to restore the contents. Courcelles 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap's block
Sorry to say this - me and Penyulap have been in email contact for months. I think I might know him best around here, he wants to contest this block and no doubt he would let ArbCom know about it. I don't understand how 'trolling' Elen made him get blocked? If you see on this revision on his talk page it was all just a joke, and it appears that Elen of the Roads thought it was too? ☠Jaguar☠ 19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done with editing around here but I stopped in to check my user page and saw this on my watchlist So I thought I would take the time to comment also about this rather pointless waste of your powers Courcelles. Penyalup is restricted to his usertalk page. If he rants there and people choose to read and respond, then its really not harming anything. There was some meaningful discussion going on there and frankly this is the same sort of pointless blocking that causes editors to dislike Wikipedia and Arbcom. I also think that blanking the talk page, aside from the block itself was not appropriate and if you were anyone but Arbcom I suspect you would have had some folks telling you to stop. I would also think that if it was bothering Elen, she would have said something, which she may well have to you and we are not aware. But I don't really get that impression. Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This seems an odd thing to do Courcelles. How can one "troll" one's own talk page? If Elen has a problem with Penyulap's responses she can just stop posting there. In fact, it looks to me that he was in the process of resolving a misconception with Elen. Even in the short time his access was reinstated, he produced an excellent montage. What did you achieve with this block? How does this action contribute to building Wikipedia? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You absolutely can troll on your own talk page, see the links above; he was trolling the project by his conduct, and not working to an unblock. A blocked user's talk page does not exist for nonsense. 23:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes... I see you are right. I'm slowly catching up with this dang newfangled internet thingy, and it was time I found out just what "troll" has come to mean. However, you didn't respond to my other comments. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Kumioko and others: the community allows blocked editors to edit their talk page only to appeal their block. Penyulap was quite obviously using his or her talk page to continue the type of conduct for which a block was originally given, so why is it unreasonable to revoke talk page access? In terms of blocks, we have two classes: blocked and unblocked. No third "blocked, but it's fine to use your talk page in a way that doesn't benefit the project" class exists. I've seen this type of extensive use of talk page access by blocked users quite a lot, and inevitably those users' talk pages turn into a source of distraction and drama. No appeal was forthcoming, so the page was simply closed down. AGK[•] 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
AGK, could you please show me where that's written down? I have seen no consensus that blocked editors may only edit to appeal their block. For definite blocks, the editor is regularly allowed to carry on on his talk page waiting for the unblock, and for indefinite I've seen more than a few where there editor has productively worked towards an unblock. I know a few admins hold the same view as you, but I've yet to see it documented. WormTT(talk) 08:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Last time I looked, consensus seemed to be that that was NOT the case. There is nothing to say that a user's talk page may be edited only to appeal their block. As has been pointed out many times in the past, anyone who finds the content of a user's talk page tl;dr or anything else can simply choose not to go there. It doesn't disrupt the 'pedia. And, in many instances, conversations on a user's talk page may have a significant impact on resolving situations, even if they don't use it to appeal their block. Pesky (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Evidence of misconduct
Per your comment at RFAR it appears you haven't looked at the evidence provided by me and Zeromus. Please see these diffs of our statements: [9][10]. I am really tired of people saying there is no evidence supporting a mutual interaction ban when said evidence has been presented right from the outset.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Courcelles, you do not own your talk page. There is a community process going on here. Refusal to engage in discussion is not becoming, attempt to silence the opposition (or should one say disperse the crowds) are likely to prove counter productive. I was hoping for a reasoned response, an ublocking of Pen, and an apology to the community. Instead, you have compounded your error. RichFarmbrough, 15:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Actually, I can remove anything I feel like, and your hostile comments deserved the removal I gave them. Penyulap was trolling. Penyulap is a sockmaster. Trolls and sockmasters get blocked; this isn't uncommon or new ground here. Courcelles 18:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrong on four counts, right only on the last two. I'm sorry you interpret these comments as hostile, they are just pointing out serious mistakes on your part, in the hope that you will swiftly correct them.
No evidence that Pen is trolling or operating socks. Example (that you deleted) claiming that archive bots failed to correctly archive his talkpage is not "admitting he is wasting the projects resources". Example: alleged sock was an account created for Commons, auto created on en, and never used for editing (and alos not a sock but an alternate account).
I'm not sure why some people wish to ABF with Pen more than with other editors, nor do I think it matters, it simply has to stop.
Sockmasters make sleeper socks all the time. It's not ABF when a proven sockmaster makes sleepers to block them, and really makes more proof he's disrupting Commons than innocent here. Courcelles 18:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Except that it is a legitimate alternative account, which is identified as his. Assuming he is a sockmaster to prove he is a sockmaster cuts no ice. Elen has admitted that that account was not maliciously created, although I don't see the apology for saying that it was. As I remember an arbitrator recently thought that saying (even implicitly) someone was a sockmaster when they were not was grounds for an arb case. If you have a problem with his actions on Commons then that is the forum, not here. Putting a second indef block on indef blocked (by you)PALZ9000 smacks of ... well I don't know what, but not carefully deliberated neutral process. There are also other reasons you should not be using admin tools in respect to Pen, which you will see if you examine his block log. RichFarmbrough, 19:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
He's blocked Rich. He can't create a legitimate alternate account. You know that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not discussing, you're engaging in a torch-and-pitchforks procession. I strongly advise you to disengage and let someone else deal with this who doesn't have an ax to grind. --Rschen7754 18:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
to High 
.
Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
gmail.com. Courcelles 18:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed match between these two, and blocked. Courcelles 02:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC) (Also, kudos on the concise statement that explains why you are suspicious. If everyone at SPI made the same quality requests, it would work much smoother. Courcelles 02:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC))
Unrelated here. Courcelles 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
. Best, Jonatalk to me 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
