User talk:Courcelles/Archive 104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100 ← Archive 102 Archive 103 Archive 104 Archive 105 Archive 106 → Archive 110

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Your protection of Penyulap's talkpage

I see you have fullprotected Penyulap's talkpage, Courcelles. Penyulap doesn't in any case have access to it per the terms (terms just instituted by you) of his block, and I can't see that you have supplied any explanation for why other users shouldn't get to post there. We've had the situation of "page non-protected, user without tpa" before, for a considerable time; we had it from September 28 to October 31; were there any problems with that? Problems on the page, I mean. (Cheatsheet: no, there weren't.) Admittedly, there was a silly request for arbitration about my unprotection of the page, but then that was promptly rejected by the arbitrators, with a generous helping of criticism of the original protection. Since you were part of that process (where you were the only arb who even evinced enough doubt about it to call for a reply from me), I'm surprised to see you now protecting Penyulap's talkpage yourself. All the arguments against Jc37's protection of the page made at that RFAR apply equally to your recent protection, as far as I can see. Would you please explain your rationale or unprotect? Or, as monotonous as this is getting, I will. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

  • Another unprotection by you on a page you are involved in would be a poor idea. The page was being used for nothing but trolling, by both Penyulap and other users. This user is indeffed, and that's not changing anytime soon, there are no legitimate uses of this page any longer, and as Penyulap was not the only other user trolling on the page, removing the chance of continued trolling is perfectly the right thing to do, esp. given Penyulap's continued inclination to sock. Courcelles 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Courcelles: Penyulap has been blocked with talk page access revoked, so your full-protection is superfluous. Site policy requires us to use page protection only to prevent disruption; if the only source of disruption on that page was Penyulap's trolling, then the TPA revocation alone should be sufficient. AGK [•] 00:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I think since Courcelles has taken the step to remove Penyulap's talkpage rights mid-flow as it were, it is probaby preferrable to protect it for a short while - which the various policies do allow for, the purpose being I believe to 'disperse the crowd' as it were. Also, when the protection was lifted last time, it was quickly obvious that users were proxying content onto it for Penyulap. Now my opinion is that this kind of proxying ought to be limited to a request to have talkpage restored to make an unblock request, which wasn't what was happening. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (e/c with Elen) Also@Courcelles: Oh, I didn't know he'd been exhibiting a continued inclination to sock, where was that? I assume you're not referring to the by no means secret or abusive Bittybattybitbotisnotabot alternative account created on Commons, where Penyulap wasn't blocked? He then, supposedly, created Bittybatty on several other projects including en, where he was blocked, thereby purportedly evading the block. But here's the thing: Elen realised, just recently, that the en Bittybatty "sock" was created automatically, most likely without Pen even being aware of it. If you didn't notice that post by Elen, please read it now, it's most clarifying.
Other things in your reply aren't altogether clear to me, sorry. In what way am I involved in, with, or on User talk:Penyulap? Please bear in mind that we have a new situation now, there have been developments since the last time I unprotected. If there hadn't been, then indeed I suppose your protection would have amounted to wheel warring (as the "third mover", reinstating Jc37's original protection). But I make no such charge, since I think both time passed and events unfolding had restarted the clock on the situation, and thereby you could be said to protect for new reasons (though not, IMO, better reasons). If the situation is new for you it's also new for me, though. You have seen a detailed account by me, in that RFAR, of the extent to which I have been and am involved with Penyulap himself (the only later addition has been me calling him a "well-meaning user" on Elen's page, if that's involvement). As far as involvement with his talkpage, it would surely make more sense to say that you were involved with the content of the page you blanked, as Penyulap had recently (in fact just seven hours earlier) posted what he called [an open letter to the Ombudsman commission on it, which took issue with a checkuser action performed by you. To summarise: I don't think you were involved for protection purposes, but then neither am I involved for unprotection purposes. But I do think you were involved for blanking purposes, or, to put it as politely as I can at this time of night (2 AM), you being the one to blank the page wasn't best practice.
BTW, I've removed the comment you left below the block template on the page. The informative part of it, about appealing the block by e-mail, was already in the template, and the bad-tempered emotive part surely needn't stand as a monument on an otherwise blank page. I really think you'll agree with me there. No? Sorry this is so long, but I thought I'd better give you my reasoning in some detail. I'd appreciate the same factualness from you; please give examples when you say things like "involved" or "inclination to sock", it makes it much easier to follow. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
  • @Elen: when the protection was lifted last time, it was quickly obvious that users were proxying content onto it for Penyulap. You must be thinking of something or somebody else. During the time the protection was lifted, 28 September to 31 October, all that happened on the page was that ClueBot archived it and that one user posted requests for graphic work (not on a very large scale). I may be naive, but I don't see what was unsuitable about that, it seemed totally benign. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
    • I'm going to keep a close eye on this one, as proxying for Penyulap on his talk page would be clear grounds to re-full protect it, but, for now, I'll lower it to semi. (As there are legitimate concerns that the user will sock, either by accounts or esp. IP's, the semi is something I don't see any reason to lift whatsoever.) Courcelles 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No idea if there have been more instances of socking or not, but I blocked User:180.181.67.106 a few weeks ago for clear (self-admitted) socking at Jimbo Wales talk page. The earlier block evasions with the same IP at ThatPeskyCommoner's talk page were IMO acceptable (under IAR, no need to become inhuman in such situations), but the later edits at Jimbo's talk page were standard block evasion. Fram (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hardly uninvolved,as the admin that made a bad block on Pen previously. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
A. Blocking someone (or taking another admin action) doesn't make that admin involved wrt further blocks. B. How does me being involved vs. uninvolved have any relevance here anyway? The question was raised above (this or previous section) whether Penyulap had socked here (at Wikipedia, not at Commons). I provided an example (perhaps the only one, no idea of that). Whether I was involved or not doesn't make any difference from that angle of course. Fram (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It does when it was a bad block, and you know it was. It was pointed out to you and you more or less said "so what". At least you could have apologised. But you appear displaying personal animus against Pen, not a new phenomena. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Accusations without diffs, and putting words in my mouth and even reading my mind? Thanks, but I'll pass on having another pointless discussion with you. Fram (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
But not miss an opportunity for a pointless escalation to Arbcom. Rich Farmbrough, 15:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

I can't believe that this has happened. Elen had no need to go to Pen's talk page, I would say that if anyone is trolling here it is not Pen, at least as far as could see. Elen is quite able to tell me to"sod off" and tell Bish never to darken her talk page again, but constitutionally unable to leave Pen alone.

Or was the "trolling" the letter to the ombudsman? In which case this stinks of Arbcom closing ranks (especially with AGK and Brad chipping in). I know Arbcom has been very slow in seeing the conflict of interest failures that I have brought up in the past, but it would have been wise to have left this to an uninvolved admin. I had not intially noticed that the complaint was against you, but that makes matters much much worse.

Moreover I am deeply unhappy about the lack of thought, the lack of explanation, the general shoddiness with which blocks are handed out and other admin actions taken, quite apart form the total lack of human consideration for one's fellow editors. It is clear that in the first instance a block was made for a good faith redirect, and that subsequent blocks were based on empty headed reading of light hearted comments.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

I've pointed out, in the past (and yes, I believe in respect of the same user) that blocking an editor may be fine, but any actions taken should never go so far as sending them to Coventry. A block should never, ever mean that nobody else is allowed to speak to them either. That is, beyond a doubt, punitive rather than preventative. Silencing the dissenting voices, on any subject, is just another example of a Ceaușescu-esque abuse of a position of power. The tendency for this to happen is the major reason for my current disenchantment with the 'pedia. Positions of trust, authority and power are being abused. That makes for a tyrannical, oppressive environment, and far more disturbing and distasteful than most of the situations which lead to it. Barack Obama said: "Laudable efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics or to oppress minorities. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech." We seem to be acquiring a very repressive, heavy-handed "Government" in this community. We seem to moving away from enlightened approaches to civilisation, and towards a military Junta style of "leadership". It's more like dictatorship. Ordinary, non-disruptive, concerned people are edging about in some fear that they will be the next to be silenced if they express their concerns. First they came springs to mind.

They "dispersed the crowds" at Tianamen Square and the surroundings, as well. Was that right? Pesky (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to consider expressing yourself in Newspeak Pesky, the adopted language of Wikipedia's ruling elite. Malleus Fatuorum 07:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
@Pesky - People died in Tiananmen Square. Real people. Comparing your wiki issues to something like that is irresponsible. Doc talk 07:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Why are you replying to me? I never mentioned Tiananmen Square. Malleus Fatuorum 08:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You replied when I was drafting - not a response to you but a comment on Pesky's analogy, now clarified. Doc talk 08:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I do appreciate that my post was (a bit?! heh!) hyperbolic. However, on a lesser scale, it's a kinda parallel. People get emotionally damaged, and scared, and concerned, in here. And they also get "disappeared", too, especially when nobody is allowed to talk to them. When the reaction to dissent of any kind seems to be on the lines of "silence the dissenters!" it gets scary. Ordinary, non-disruptive, concerned Wikipedians are afraid that they will be next. Just to silence the critics, and brush stuff under the carpet. This is a very, very real concern for me, and I apologise if the only real-world parallels I can think of which I can actually link to are a bit OTT. It's the mindset which is disturbing, rather than the extent. Pesky (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding: of course I realise that Pen has "issues". I;m not denying that for a moment. But he also has talents. One is in the area of visual / graphics work. Another is in the area of sniffing out socks. And I cannot rid my mind of the lurking suspicion that, just maybe, his biggest "sin" was that he got far too close to the scent trail of a mole. A so-far-undiscovered sockmaster, possibly in a high-profile position. Pesky (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

More adding (sorry!): I've been involved in the Real Life situation of investigating and dealing with abuses of power and process, and miscarriages of justice, for over a decade. With years and years of experience and investigation, one develops a "nose" for little things which ring quiet alarm bells, and one of those things is an apparent out-of-scale attempt to "make something go away". On the whole, it tends to occur when someone, somewhere, has something to hide; it frequently gets things brushed under the carpet and "disappeared" for years. The case of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, the London Police corruption investigation, and an unnerving array of others, illustrate this. Sometimes the reaction is just too much for the apparent offences. People are "shut up". Pesky (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Pen's admitted joke sock was actually nothing compared to the admitted joke sock of Il Duce of the Featured Article space, Raul654. Which admin is going to volunteer to block Raul, revoke his talk page access, and full-protect his talk page to keep any wayward supporters from complaining there? Show of hands, please.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Declared as an alt the day it was created - sock "legit" would seem to apply very clearly.
@Pesky - You are an excellent part of this project, and it would be a shame to see you quit or otherwise restrict your involvement in Wikipedia for political reasons. Don't believe the hype! If you do and decide to go, I will be saddened to lose a respected voice in this crazy den of pigs :( Doc talk 10:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Bless you, Doc. Real Life is absolute shite at the moment, so: #1 I'm not functioning at my best, and #2 I probably ought to be concentrating more on that stuff, really. Though there's very little I can actually do about it, though. Pesky (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note on socking

There seem to be a rather duff assumption on the go on this talkpage. A blocked user cannot create a legitimate sock. They are blocked. They cannot edit Wikipedia. They cannot legitimately create a different account and edit Wikipedia from that while they remain blocked. Creating an account elsewhere and sneaking in via automatic account creation is common among sockmasters (I believe they think the checkuser tool won't pick it up). I never got a straight answer from Penyulap about the automatic account creation, and he has been editing anonymously on his IP, which definitely is socking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it was Fram who said that the sympathy and concern Pen posted on my talk in regard to my toddler grandson's cancer and lung-removal was best looked at in the light of IAR. On the grounds of simple humanity. Adding: oh, and Pen was totally open about it. Signed with his own name. No attempt at hiding anything. Pesky (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I hate socking, but, if that had been Pen's only socking, I'd have been inclined to overlook it. It wasn't, not by a country mile. And most of it has not been nearly as good-natured. Courcelles 20:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, that wasn't what I was referring to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad it wasn't that. One of the things which still concerns me is that people regularly pop up editing from IP addresses in conversations where it's clear that they'd rather be anonymous to the other editors involved in the conversation (and generally clear-enough-on-the-evidence that they're not newbies). We don;t know, obviously, if their "real" account is blocked, or whatever. But unless they do something really drastic, either nothing is done about it, or nobody ever knows if anything was done about it. Just on the basis of common-sense logic and statistics, it's likely that some (many?) of them are also socking. It appears that Pen gets picked out where others doing the same thing are ignored. I know he has issues (including health issues which may well be a contributory factor), but isn't there any way we can defuse this situation, so that we can make use of his exceptional talents in things like graphics creation and editing, etc.?

Adding: it seems that we may have got ourselves into a kind of circular situation here; along the lines of "the beatings will continue until the whining has stopped". Like treating someone's allergy rash with an ointment made out of whatever it was that causes the rash ... there must be something better that we can attempt. Pesky (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • There are differences between "unsanctioned user, occasionally edits logged out in innocent manner", "unsanctioned user, edits logged out for unacceptable (including but not limited to votestacking)", "sanctioned user, edits logged out, no issue with sanctions", "sanctioned user, edits logged out to circumvent sanctions" and "blocked user, edits logged out". There are a couple other scenarios, but these five are the big ones that cover most uses of IP's by people who also have accounts. Most of the folks who have accounts don't NEED to get caught, because they're doing absolutely nothing wrong. If any admin ever deals with those situations? They go to oversight. Not to file a socking case, but to, if the editor wants, get the IP out of the history. Oversight deals with the situation many times a day when user X doesn't realise they weren't logged in until they save the edit. Fine, dandy, takes two seconds and no one ever thinks of it again.

−

  • But using an IP to evade scrutiny, votestack, get around a topic ban or a block? Then, yeah, that's a CU matter. A user who is blocked may not edit Wikipedia outside of if their talk page is still open. Full stop, end of discussion. I won't go into BEANS territory about how to "get away" with using an IP, as you acknowledge, there are likely banned or blocked users using IP's as we speak; but that doesn't change the fact that they're doing something that is not allowed, and that if they do arouse suspicion, they're going to be stopped to the best of our ability. If we stop doing that, then we might as well send the blocking and banning policy pages straight to MFD. It is a bit like a traffic light. Because we can't stop everyone who runs a red light, we don't just decide that running red lights is something we're not trying to stop anymore. But that we still hold "running red lights is bad" doesn't mean there aren't occasional, rare times where running one isn't acceptable. That's like the note on your talk page; that sometimes something not ordinarily allowed should be overlooked doesn't mean that the underlying issue should no longer be enforced. No, it isn't some "the beatings will continue" situation, it is "the current sanctions will remain until they're no longer needed." And the socking proves the need for the sanction; we have a long standing WP:SO baseline; follow the sanctions and we'll consider lifting them. The number of people who can't get a second chance with a year of not editing WP are very small, but as SOP (at least for BASC) unblock/ban requests aren't considered without at least six months without using a sock. It's possible; a few folks a month manage to do it, and doing so shows an actual commitment to follow the expectations and goals of the project in a way that socking will never be able to do; as the sockmaster, every edit, chooses not to follow what is expected of everyone else. Courcelles 05:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification here. I do fully appreciate all those differences now. Sadly, real life stuff has been getting in the way (heh!) of things in here, and clearly affecting my mood, as well as time resources and so on. Would there be any way forwards for Pen to be able to come back to us (constructively) without having to wait ages? (Sorry, I'm appearing really thick here! I did read the above ... I meant any way which we can actually get through to him!) Pesky (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Hi. I was wondering if you could please delete this sandbox User:Conquistador2k6/Lexi. It's just it's been around for a couple years and was not created by me to begin with and it's not really doing anything and I'm not really interested in editing it. Thanks in advance. User:Conquistador 2k6Talk to me, dammit! 11 November 2012 23:44 (UTC)

  • Sure, gone. Courcelles 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers.User:Conquistador 2k6Talk to me, dammit! 12 November 2012 00:42 (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.

- JuneGloom Talk 22:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sent you another email about something else, sorry! - JuneGloom Talk 00:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RFAR/Crats

I wanted to tell at least one member of ArbCom that I have struck and withdrawn my initial report, as the situation has taken an unexpected turn and is in the process of resolving itself. Of course, it is still up to ArbCom to decide if they want to accept the case or not, but the circumstances have changed so much that I felt it was necessary to explain. The admin has asked for his bit to be removed, understanding that this would be considered "under a cloud", and Nihonjoe has complied by removing it. There are still unanswered questions, but there is an ongoing RfC now, and those may be better to leave to the regular community, who now seems interested in seeking a solution. I sincerely appreciate the participation and insight, which ended up being a catalyst for what transpired, but feel that continuing the process may be unnecessary and/or unhelpful now that the circumstances have changed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I saw this before retiring last night, and moved my vote to declining the case; if someone else does that, we can archive it as mathematically impossible and move on to letting the RFCs work. Courcelles 19:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your thoughtfulness during the entire process. This was a difficult decision to bring to Arb. I've never filed at Arb before, actually, and knew that there would be some hard feeling with some of the Bureaucrats. I understand that no one likes having their judgement or exclusive domain challenged. But it fell into WP:IAR because there are no rules that seem to cover the situation, and it showed there is a gaping hole in our current system for resysoping. No other forum had the authority to even consider the situation, and as uncomfortable as it was, there was no alternative. You seemed to get that, which was helpful. I don't expect all the holes to be filled with the RfC, but at least there is some momentum helping us all move in the right direction. Thanks again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

I'm presently considering standing in this year's ArbCom elections (rather seriously, actually...I already have a statement written and have drafted answers to some of the general questions), but I would like the opinion of someone who has been through it before. I've read User:AGK/ACE2012, but is there anything else you would point out about the elections or being an Arbitration Committee member? What do I have to lose by running in the event that I'm not elected? From your experience would the community consider me a good candidate as of now (before my statement and question answers), or do I not stand a snowball's chance in hell? Any advice you can give would be appreciated. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • AGK has some very good points. Remember that even when an arb is seen to be doing absolutely nothing there can still be over an hour a day of e-mail to read, respond, and debate. (Even when ArbCom looks totally unoccupied, there are still ban appeals arriving by the mailbag) Really, anyone that wants to do the job, should run. I might have kept my local Starbucks in business last year, but at the end of the day, the process benefits from more candidates; I'd consider at least twice as many legitimate candidacies as seats as a minimum. Those who run and don't get in don't lose anything -- note that AGK himself failed in 2009 before getting elected in 2011 (as did SirFozzie in 2008, and Shell Kinney something like three times). The elections are hellish in that you don't sleep much, and can drown in questions, but ultimately worthwhile in keeping this place working. At the end of the day, it takes anyone a couple months to figure out which way is up in this role, so if the time isn't an issue, I think you should run, and that you'd do perfectly well. If the time is going to be an issue, then don't; with only 15 seats, long-term inactives are real problems these days. Courcelles 20:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
(Adding, that doesn't mean breaks or real life aren't good reasons to be inactive at times, it just means that if lack of time would be a continual problem for you, then don't run. We all get those months where moving house, a hurricane, and a nor'easter all hit in sequence! (or is that just me...) Courcelles 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Requesting protection for Queen article

Hello Courcelles. Requesting page protection for Queen. Since the page became unprotected recently almost all edits by ip users have been reverted. In terms of views the article is very busy and has a history of vandalized edits. Thanks. Chie one (talk) 23:34 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Damn, is this still a problem? Courcelles 21:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour...

...are you ok if I change the RobertRosen SPI to checked status? Or are you still chipping away at it?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Darn, I thought I did that. I'll go look and fix... Courcelles 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    • And cleaned up. Sorry about that. Courcelles 02:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Isabel dos Santos

Hello Courcelles: months ago, we were in contact because of the article on "José Eduardo dos Santos". Luckily, problems with that article seem to have stopped - but now there are problems with the article on his daughter. User: Cavalo Lusitano has been editing this article in en:WP as well as in pt:WP, introducing apologetic POV, unsourced (and wrong) information etc. On the talk page of the article, User:Cruks has now requested semi-protection, and I should like to second that request. -- Aflis (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It's only been one revert, so please let me know if problems continue. Thanks. Courcelles 02:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem are the edits by User: Cavalo Lusitano, all of which have to be reverted. Apparently User:Cruks, the main author of the article, did not do this before being sure the article was protected. I shall now try and do the reverts myself. --Aflis (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC) --- Done. Do you think you can semi-protect the page now, thus preventing User: Cavalo Lusitano from messing the text up once again? --Aflis (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • But all the edits of Cavalo lusitano were in succession, so it is only one revert, not enough to protect. Anyways, they will be autoconfirmed in two edits and exempt from semi-protection, so what you're asking for would be useless. Courcelles 17:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, right you are. So let us see what happens next. On pt:WP User:Cavalo Lusitano stopped editing the article "Isabel dos Santos" after somebody had reverted all his edits...--Aflis (talk) 00:14, 21 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 Readership: Low to High Readership: High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
Readership: High Treatise on Tolerance   Readership: High Katarina Srebotnik
Readership: High Nicolas Escudé   Readership: Medium Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova career statistics
Readership: High Alberta Brianti   Readership: High 2011 in tennis
Readership: High Camille Pin   Merge
Readership: High Rachel Snow   Readership: High Velar nasal
Readership: High Nina Bratchikova   Readership: High Andrea Petkovic
Readership: High Virginia Ruzici   Readership: Medium Spinning heel kick
Readership: High Kelly Robbins   Add sources
Readership: Low Elisabeth Esterl   Readership: High Vera Dushevina
Readership: High Jamie Hampton   Readership: High McDonald's Thanksgiving Parade
Readership: High Ben Willbond   Readership: High Li Na career statistics
Readership: High Matthias Bachinger   Wikify
Readership: High Lou Roe   Readership: Medium The Little Saigon News
Readership: Medium Kathy Ahern   Readership: Low Olive Dungan
Readership: Medium Diana Buzean   Readership: Medium Hit inflation attack
Readership: Medium Patricia Mayr-Achleitner   Expand
Readership: High Eric Lyons   Readership: High Grant Connell
Readership: Medium Janet Anderson (golfer)   Readership: High Albert Ramos
Readership: High Melissa Reid   Readership: High House System at the California Institute of Technology

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) 15:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Help please!

Hi Courcelles!

Can you please take a look at this for me please? I'm totally confused.com as to what's happened there. When I moved those pages the other day they moved ok but I'm now being told information has been lost? Now it's like the page is on a double redirect? Every other page I redirected that day has gone through ok. That's if I'm understanding what the editor is saying! I'm just totally confused as to what's happened. I'm now off on holiday though for the next couple of weeks. Can you please have a look and advise on my talk page?--5 albert square (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, ALbie, looking at the history at the current title I'm not sure where this concept of data being lost is coming from? Point me to the specific problem? Thanks. Courcelles 00:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Rolex ranking included in LPGA Tour Summary

The Rolex Ranking does not belong in a table showing LPGA Tour performance. The Rolex Ranking is NOT a measure of LPGA Tour performance. It includes LPGA Tour performance for players who play on that tour, but it is actually a measure of performance in ALL professional golf events. Furthermore, it is not at all linked to the LPGA season, so stating the Rolex Ranking in conjunction with LPGA Tour season results makes not sense. I am adding separate sections for year-end World Rankings to players' sites. See, for example, Stacy Lewis and Michelle Wie. I ask that you have patience while I continue this or, better yet, help out with the project yourself. --Crunch (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I pretty much disagree with everything you just said, and think adding yet another table is a downright lousy idea, the articles are already too full of them, and a whole new section is WP:UNDUE; they fit perfectly well on the existing tables, and for most players, work fine given the dominance of the LPGA tour, unlike in men's golf, where there are multiple major tours. Courcelles 22:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh football league

Hi, On Monday I requested that the 2011-12 Bangladesh League was moved to be simply the 2012 Bangladesh League. Something I couldn't rename myself as it was previously called that. This is for a soccer/football article. Later that evening it was moved and called 2012 Bangladesh Premier League ( I can't quite remember if this is the name I requested or not), but what already appeared to be their was this article for cricket. We now appear to have lost all the data for 2011-12 Bangladesh League and the 2012 article refers to a Bangladeshi cricket competition. Can this be restored in anyway back to say Sunday evening? Once restored I will then re-look at what the article can be called? Druryfire (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore this request now, as the article now appears to be back. Thanks for your time Druryfire (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

could you check on something please?

At the wiki diff of [1] on the right hand side, first paragraph the words "reports" is highlighted and a mouseover gives me an advertisement. Clicking the link goes to a different ad. I've not noticed this before so I may have picked up some spyware in my firefox browser. This has been happeneing with many diffs I've seen at wikipedia the last day or so. Highlighted words that are ads in the diffs. Can you check this out for me? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything, and I've seen this problem reported enough to tell you with rather strong confidence you have indeed picked up some spyware/adware somewhere, and need to clean your computer. Good luck. Courcelles 07:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks... found it under a phony browser extension called "Mozilla Safe Browsing 2.0.14". Thanks for checking for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli-Arab sanction questions

I'm a bit tired of raising concerns about these sanctions at administrative noticeboards, so I'm hoping you can give me an opinion on a couple of questions as a member of ArbCom. I realize you would just be speaking for yourself, not for the committee as a whole, but it might still be helpful in avoiding a more full-blown discussion and shedding some light on issues that I'm probably less familiar with than you are.

First question. Can a non-admin notify a user of the sanctions? WP:ARBPIA doesn't explicitly say, although it's implied as the suggested template ({{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} states: "This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here." User:Shrike has notified more than one user, the latest example here. Shrike doesn't use the suggested template but a variant that doesn't include any language about a non-involved admin. BTW, I'm not accusing Shrike of acting in bad faith. I'd just like to know if what they're doing is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Second and related question. Can a non-admin slap a notice on an article talk page that the article is subject to sanctions? Again, ARBPIA refers to the notice but doesn't say who can add the notice. It's even less clear (to me) than the logging of notifications to editors.

If you think I should ask these questions elsewhere, please tell me where. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • We actually had this come up as a clarification request a few months back; where the general sense was that a non-admin may give the notice to an editor, but should not be doing it in a manner to jab at the opponent. As to tagging the article talk pages; that's not an "official" warning to anyone, so it would not be a problem inmy mind for anyone to tag a relevant article. Note that the authoritative rules for sanctions are at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions[[, and that contains no language that a warning must be from an admin, and it is those rules that are binding, not a template. (Each case used to have slightly different wording of the DS; this was changed by motion in October 2011, see the changes made of that date to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.) Courcelles 18:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks much, that helps, I'll leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

92.x

The IP who was recently editing Assassination of Abraham Lincoln has been a plague on all sorts of articles relating to Lincoln, Kennedy, the Titanic and Alcatraz for more than a year. When engaged they're polite and reasonable, but then they go right back to pointless and sometimes ungrammatical rearrangement of sentences, insertion of OR and opinion, and general disruption. I've probably made more than 50 blocks this year. They edit from a UK Carphone Warehouse range that's highly dynamic but relatively unused. I've tried short rangeblocks, but multiple /16 ranges are needed and I don't like to do that, at least without checkuser input on activity elsewhere in the range. Any ideas? I and other editors have tried patience and reasoning and persuasion, but in the end nothing has changed, and I've gone back to summarily blocking them and reverting everything, despite a certain appreciation that they've been consistently nice when confronted. Nevertheless there was an incident in September when they made an edit implying suicide [2] (turned out to be a quote from The Final Confession of Jack the Ripper), and they've admitted that they understand why we have problems with their editing [3]. I've protected the article that have been hit the worst: Edward Smith (sea captain) and Charles Leale most recently; their histories are littered with 92.x edits and reversions. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • BEANS, I'm going to reply via e-mail. Courcelles 02:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2013)

Hello Courcelles! You accepted the WP:RFPP for Royal Rumble (2013) [4] however you didn't protect the page. Could you please protect the page? Thank you! Vacationnine 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

ACC request #83563

Your skills are requested on ACC at request #83563. Thank you. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC) (Commented in-system, thanks for the heads up. Courcelles 02:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles, I've created the user's account. But they emailed the mailing list and said they can't edit (because it was a hardblock). I've asked them to use Template:Unblock on their talk page, but would you be able to help them out (since it's a checkuserblock the admin will probably ask for advice anyway), it's User:Xray215. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Flagged as IP Block Exempt for now. Courcelles 10:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've left them a message about the permission. Regarding watching, they're on my list of users to keep an eye on. I'll ping you on first edit if you want?
Thanks :) (And, der, I didn't leave a note? Damn. my 5 AM insomniac brain is poor) Courcelles 14:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah you did, I just wanted to check that you wanted a note on first edit, rather than just checking for disruptive editing. In any case here's the first [5]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Looks good, and like the rangeblock was an FP. Thanks. Courcelles 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Missed one

Missed at least this one. - jc37 09:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks. The WP:ACN one is the "official" copy, so I didn't bother going around and trying to find them all and sign them. Courcelles 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked user requesting unblock

Could you take a look, or have another CU take a look, at User Talk:Danton's Jacobin? The user is requesting unblock, and since its a CU block, only y'all can handle the matter. As a side note, the user evaded the block to edit as an IP. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I see Salvio already took a look. Good, the evidence here is so straightforward that no one could miss it on the CU screen. Courcelles 14:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion

While I understand that they presumably are all grouped together due to the concern about confidentiality, I think that the removal of checkuser and oversight should be a separate motion for clarity. Since the behind-the-scenes removals (email lists and the arb wiki) are different than en.wp user-right removals. (Arbcom would be using two separate types of abilities.) There's a long tradition concerning arbcom and desysop, for example. and I think you may want to dot your I's and cross your T's on this. - jc37 21:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I see your point, and wouldn't mind if someone did split them, but the problem with split, rather than omnibus motions, is the risk that the votes fall in such a way that one half passes and not the other. And that's fairly useless if the goal is to remove someone's access to all non-public information. Courcelles 21:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with trusting the committee to do what's right (the spirit of IAR, after all : )

I just think they should be separate.

And honestly, if half passes and half doesn't, then that's the ruling of the committee.

And now that you say that, I'm feeling uncomfortable with the idea of "controlling" the committee through an un-split motion. I'm not saying you are, or even intended that. Just how it's starting to feel. - jc37 21:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Restoration of deleted article

Hi Courcelles, I was hoping to make an article for the 90s PC game Dinosaur Safari, and I noticed it was PRODed last year. Would you mind restoring a copy to my namespace so I can work on it? I may end up completely rewriting it, but I don't want to duplicate any effort that's already been done. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you may want to know that I've previously restored a deleted article into something decent, making Pro-Life (politician) into a DYK. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • As it was deleted by PROD< it can simply be restored directly to the article space, if you prefer. Just let me know where you want it. Courcelles 23:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
In that case, it might as well go to mainspace. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Done! Courcelles 23:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite

Hello Courcelles. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

3PO

You're the "lucky" winner to be the first admin to top my watchlist at this particular moment. Would you please take a look at User talk:My76Strat#Question, and please offer your thoughts on the situation? - jc37 07:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • If he really is notifying everyone who commented on that Case, I'm not minded to call it a problem, but it is fairly useless. That's a high-profile RFC, so it could likely be assumed that anyone who is interested in it has at least seen it. But, yeah, the evidence in that case was pretty much a lot of replies to that RFC in another format. At this point, I'd just let him finish, and ask him to consult someone before RFC spamming a bunch of people again in the future. Courcelles 07:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Though these notices are very much non-ideal, they imply the user commented recently in an Arbcom proceeding, not one from most of a year ago. Courcelles 07:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok. I think I'm going to point him to your comments here. (Rather than to try to summarise : )
And thank you for taking the time. - jc37 07:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

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 2450 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. 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. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Danton's Jacobin

Is there a case somewhere I can look at? Just wondering about what to do about his edits and any articles he created. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no case, and even if there were one, it wouldn't tell you a lot; while I tagged the name accounts, the most abuse was by IP addresses. I'd understand a presumptive deletion of all creations here, it is hard to know with the sockmasters if anything they put in the encyclopaedia is reliable. Courcelles 16:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi. I'm wondering if you would be able to delete User:List of Home and Away characters (1995)? Slight error as I'm working with a smaller screen at the minute. Thanks in advance.

Conquistador2k6 30 November 2012 20:00(UTC)

  • No problem, done. Courcelles 05:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoelzer

Any chance of you revisiting? A new IP sock has popped up very soon after the others were blocked. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Super quick! Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:44, 1 December 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 Readership: Low to High Readership: High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
Readership: High Kamal Akhtar   Readership: High Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
Readership: High Annika Beck   Readership: High California Proposition 8
Readership: High Lesley Hunt   Readership: High The Rugburns
Readership: High Andreas Beck (tennis)   Merge
Readership: High Tell It to the Volcano   Readership: High Andrea Petkovic career statistics
Readership: High Vivek Wadhwa   Readership: High Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000)
Readership: High Renáta Tomanová   Readership: High Ayat al-Akhras
Readership: High Lukáš Lacko   Add sources
Readership: High Golden Touch (song)   Readership: High Jarmila Gajdošová
Readership: High Nuria Llagostera Vives   Readership: High Nicole Vaidišová
Readership: High Lourdes Domínguez Lino   Readership: High Shubham Raje Junior College
Readership: High Inverness, Shelby County, Alabama   Wikify
Readership: High Helen Flanagan   Readership: Medium Carol Duboc
Readership: High Albert Montañés   Readership: Medium Global Invasive Species Information Network
Readership: High Fausto Vallejo   Readership: Low Gilbert Carter High School
Readership: High Black Orc   Expand
Readership: Medium Veronica Burton   Readership: High Grace Min
Readership: High Laura Garrone   Readership: High 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team
Readership: Low Sri Ma Vidyalaya   Readership: High Santiago Giraldo

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) 13:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

New swimming medalists category

Courcelles, I'm not sure what to make of the new category that you are adding to swimmer bios. It's apparently for the FINA world championships (25m), but that's not obvious from the category name. Using "FINA" in the category name to distinguish it from the world championships (50m) doesn't help, either, because both events are sponsored by FINA.

Here's what FINA calls their two world championship swimming events:

  • "FINA World Championships": long-course (50-meter pool) swimming championships. Event also includes other aquatics sports, such as diving, synchronized swimming, and water polo. Currently held in odd-numbered years. (see link here)
Our Wikipedia medalist category is called "Category:World Aquatics Championships medalists in swimming." It probably should be called "Category:FINA World Championships medalists in swimming."
  • "FINA World Swimming Championships (25m)": short-course (25-meter pool) swimming championships. Does not include other aquatics sports. Currently held in even-numbered years. (see link here)
Our Wikipedia medalist category is called "Category:Medalists at the FINA World Swimming Championships. It probably should be called "Category:FINA World Swimming Championships (25m) medalists."

In both cases, it would appear that our category names are confusing in that they do not use the official FINA names of the events, and their meanings cannot be easily distinguished one from the other.

Also, for reasons we have previously discussed, the category name should conclude, not begin, with the word "medalists."

Please let me know your thoughts on these points. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The five-discipline event has long been called the World Aquatics Championships, the "world championships" moniker is, I believe, just a shorthand for when there is no ambiguity. The new category likely does need a (25 m) modifier after it, even though the "World Swimming Championships" should be enough to disambiguate them, it might not be. I'll move the category there shortly -- to keep my list accurate and not drive me insane, it is going to be easier to finish populating the category and then move it, rather than break the list into two. As to whether "Medalists" belongs at the front or the end, I sort of saw your argument once, but I think I've come to the conclusion that I disagree for one-sport events where there is not the need for multiple categories. Feel free to file a CFD after I move the category over, but I do think this format is best. Courcelles 21:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand your methodology and need to finish populating the category before moving it. I'll do some more homework regarding "official" event names, and get back with you. Given the common sponsorship of these events, I think it would be appropriate to include "FINA" in both category names, especially if "FINA" is a part of the officially recognized event names. Of course I will also try to convince you again regarding the syntax of where "medalists" should be placed within the category name. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:13, 5 December 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.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Danton's Jacobin

It seems that indefinitely blocked user Danton's Jacobin evading block: [6] (79.99.144.141 (talk · contribs)). GiW (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note. Courcelles 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

27 Club

Thanks for semi-protecting 27 Club. That was definitely needed, and I was thinking about requesting it anyway. I believe the indefinite time frame is also appropriate in this case. Anyway, like I said, thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Someone actually did come to WP:RFPP and request it. The most apparent thing was that the editors there were wasting entirely too much time getting rid of uncensored nonsense. It seems toi me that you've got a future FLC there, good luck, the list would look good on the main page! Courcelles 19:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hidey-ho

Did you happen to see my email amongst the myriad I'm sure flood your inbox on a daily basis? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah, and yo have a reply. Courcelles 20:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Merci! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Lung cancer

Hi. Did you "oversight" some recent IP edits to "Lung cancer"? If so, may I ask why? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The oversight log for that page is empty. There are a couple revdel's noted here. Courcelles 16:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You used revision deletion? I notice that you used vague passive voice in your reply. Was the text really "purely disruptive material" per the definition used per WP:CRD? "Lung cancer" does receive a fair amount of vandalism, justifying your recent semi-protection. However given the usual type of vandalism to article, I doubt that the recent vandalism really justified revdeletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Then please ask another admin to have a look at the diffs, they should not be visible, and I refuse to repeat their contents here. Courcelles 19:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I just took a look at the diffs in question. The edits weren't the "usual" type of keyboard-smash or "u r ghey" vandalism you're probably imagining they were, Axl. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes, the content was revdeled for a reason, and that reason is why we're not willing to describe what the edits were onwiki. You'll just have to trust us on this one. --Rschen7754 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

More eyes

Just saw you pop up on my watchlist.

I already dropped a note at AN.

But would you take a look at the situation developing? - jc37 07:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Someone with my current level of awakeness should not try to make sense out of that CFD -- I'm overdue for an appointment with my pillow already, sorry. Courcelles 07:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    lol, nod. and no worries. Though I have a feeling this may still be around when you awaken next (unless you're sleeping with Nimue of course : ) - jc37 07:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    What a mess. I don't know what ANI will do at this point. All of this is headed to a DRV, which might not be a bad idea -- as much as CFD is necessary it isn't well trafficked. All of this will, I feel, be decided by an omnibus DRV, and most of what goes on before that discussion isn't going to change that this is all headed there. Courcelles 04:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    "Mess" about covers it.
    And I agree (or at least hope) that community discussion at DRV should at least deal with the current issues.
    Thanks for taking a look. - jc37 05:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Block notification

Hi Courcelles, I saw your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lurulu and have replied to it there. However, a notification on a user's talk page after a block is not mandatory. The main requirement per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK is that administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. If such reasoning is supplied in the block log, when the user attempts to edit, they will see a big splash screen explaining that they are blocked, the reason for the block, provided one was entered, and other useful information. (At least that's the way it looked the last time I blocked my doppelgänger.)

I agree that administrators should in most cases leave a notice on the talk page as well, but that is not mandatory. In practice, I almost always notify the blocked user via a talk page message or more frequently a template, but in vandalism-only accounts, I (and others that I know of) sometimes don't bother since the reasoning is obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I actually missed your note on the talk page, my bad on that one. For VOA's and socks, I generally agree that a template is just a waste of time (and may even be feeding the attention-seeking motivation some people have) but in this case, I would have liked to have seen a clearer message of how to appeal the block in the block notice. (Being blocked is... interesting. I got "friendly fired" twice before becoming an admin, and even for mistaken blocks, it can be disorienting, so a clear statment to use {{unblock}} is usually helpful for long-term users, esp. if doing an indef.) (For the record, I agree with the underlying block, the litany of deletion notices on that talk page meant a stronger message was needed.) Courcelles 08:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sig

Re: this - my sig has just barfed also. A software blip, presumably. Honestly, we just can't get the staff nowadays <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh, I've made that mistake more than a few times. Your error looks like the classic five tilde sig; an extra ~ causes you to just get a timestamp without an actual signature. Not sue where my line break came from, though! Courcelles 02:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

"Link repair using AWB"

Well, Courcelles, if you insist on clogging up the entire "Recent changes" page with your fixes, then I'm just going to go make myself a drink and finish watching Law and Order. Come to think of it, you're probably a CSI person, which is why you're editing like crazy. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Haha... actually, I've never cared for CSI. Not that I don't like mysteries, I do -- what I hate is gratuitous shows of blood and such. (Are they still making Criminal Intent? I haven't seen one of those in what must be going on five years now...) Courcelles 04:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm watching Oxygen. I think they still carry pagers. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Don't laugh, but I carried a pager well into the 2000's. For those of us who drive the middle-of-nowhere roads, a page always caught up to you, where a cell-phone message might get lost for a considerable length of time. (Oh, they days when you could just drive rather than do half a dozen other things or feel like you were wasting time.) Courcelles 05:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I feel guilty anytime I step outside or walk down the hall to the restroom when I pull out my iPhone. God, can't I be without this constant stream of information? Guess not. Yes, this fear of wasting time--it's awful. Oh, they quit making the show in 2011; tonight it's episodes from season 6. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay, it is official. I am the only person on the planet still carrying a cell phone that makes phone calls, and nothing else besides. I got called old-fashioned tonight at dinner... I guess I see their point! I think I'm going to go read a book -- made of dead trees, not plastic and a touch-screen. Courcelles 05:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Go old school and turn on Oxygen--it's Liza Minelli! Drmies (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
              • If I turned on the TV in this tiny house, the person that is managing to sleep wouldn't be doing it any longer! Courcelles 06:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabby Douglas talk

When you take care of an issue raised on a talk page, please acknowledge it somehow (on that page) so that other editors aren't looking for the problem on the article page for nothing. Thank you. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedied article

Hi, you speedied 1958 Nottinghamshire Avro Vulcan crash today under G5, but I was wondering if I could have the text of the last revision? There was nothing wrong with the article per se, and I'd like to re-create it. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It's in your e-mail inbox. Note this was a G5 -- banned users are banned for a reason, and this means you should trust none of the article unless you can verify it yourself. Courcelles 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, if you recreate it, please let me know. It would need to be semied against socks. Courcelles 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep, I'll double-check the sources. Thank you again. Should I let you know when it's created, or do I ask anyone at ANI for help? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Just create it as normal and come let me know here, and I'll stick a semi-protect on it then :) Courcelles 01:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Need some help

Hello and thanks for doing a check at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Party4321. However, I noticed there might be more users involved, and the master account ist actually User:Whatthedog, but the case has already been closed by an Admin. Im not sure if I should launch a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Whatthedog since the case is already closed months ago. Whats the best way to proceed from here? (just need someone to point me in the right direction) -A1candidate (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Everything we have on Whatthedog is stale from a CU perspective, however, 84BKA is totally Red X Unrelated to Party4321 -- They're not even on the same continent. Courcelles 04:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There's compelling evidence that User:CactusJack1 is a sock puppet of Party4321, his edit over here is exactly the same as this edit by User:Alexandernoses, further evidence is that User:CactusJack1's account was created on 13 December (log) after his other 2 accounts were blocked on the 12th. There is also a chance that 125.88.74.95 is related to the above accounts because his first and only edit over here was made in the same section as the other accounts, although I may be wrong on this one. Would it be against Wikipedia's policy and guidelines if I were to ask (out of curiosity) which continents Party4321, Whatthedog and 84BKA come from? -A1candidate (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone already blocked CactusJack1 as a sock, good, good. Mentioning where anyone is would be a violation of policy, though, sorry. I can talk in relative generalities only, not specifics. Courcelles 17:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense but isn't consistent with what I've seen other CUs do. I've seen comments like "That user is from the Toronto area and the other is in Ireland." Should they be doing that? --Pine✉ 19:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
IMO, no, they shouldn't, there is really not any need to in most cases. The more general you can be and still get the point across, the more in line with the global checkuser policy I'd say you are. I'm not sure what would be gained by saying "they're both in New York" versus "they're both in the same major city", for example -- if one is in Brooklyn and the other Staten Island, you can just say "different regions of the same large city" rather than pegging anyone on the map. Courcelles 19:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would you please discuss this with your colleagues on the functionaries list? --Pine✉ 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a specific incident in mind? If you do, WP:AUSC would be the way to go with it. If not, well, m:CheckUser policy is not as absolute as often assumed -- you actually can, if you need to, go so far as to say user Q is using IP 111.111.111.111, such cases are very, very rare, but they do exist, and policy doesn't forbid it if necessary -- AUSC looked into this in mid-2011, see [7]. Courcelles 07:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't remember the specific incidents although I have a guess as to which CU was involved and I think I saw this sort of thing more than once. I am hoping that you, or perhaps AUSC, could send a reminder to the functionaries about this. I'm willing to take this up with AUSC but my experience with them is that they take a very narrow view of their responsibilities and that promoting best practices is not something that interests them, they view themselves solely as an enforcement mechanism. --Pine✉ 19:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that this isn't an absolute "thou shalt not" thing, I can't second guess anyone without specifics. Courcelles
I was thinking in more general terms, and I see your point. Thanks for the info. --Pine✉ 00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at user talk:penyulap

Dear Courcelles,

There is a current discussion on Penyulap's talk page which involves other people asking the user for information. I don't see a reason for them to be blocked from contributing to the discussion directly; though right now due to being talk-page blocked Penyualp is corresponding through third parties by email. Since everyone involved would prefer for the discussion to be public, could you please unblock talk-page access to facilitate, at least for the duration of the thread?

Thank you, – SJ + 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • We've been through this a few times now, someone argues that he can use the talk page productively, and all he ends up doing with it is trolling. There's not a reason in the world to re-open that page, ever. Courcelles 05:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion re recently-created user Lockheart1

I've just reverted (as two separate edits) an edit by Lockheart1 (talk · contribs) which felt oddly familiar; checking the page history I find that half of it was very similar to an edit made by Google9999 (talk · contribs) who you blocked. I suspect that they may be the same person. What do you think? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted article re-created

At 1958 Nottinghamshire Avro Vulcan crash. Reporting in as requested :) Thanks again for the help. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks; indef semi'ed to keep the socks away. Courcelles 00:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 01:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

FYI

[8] Bishonen | talk 15:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

  • Oh good lord. This sockmaster has done NOTHING but waste the community and BASC's time ever since Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Penyulap, and trolls this project at every single chance, and we feed right into it with this sort of thing. And attacking me over this OC complaint, when the complaint did not mention me, and I am hardly the only CU to have ran checks on him is a little pointed. "Blame the CU's because they caught me socking" is a common refrain. Courcelles 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mobeus_Robotica

Only edit is to rag on Malleus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Already blocked, that's User:Hackneyhound, CU shows no sleepers. Courcelles 22:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Changed the block rationale to show whose sock this was for future reference. Courcelles 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You have outed yourself

as a Mac user. Over at the latest Malleus fandango you have typed a '2' where I believe you intended an '@'. pablo 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Argh... I hate this new keyboard. I spilled coffee on my GOOD one Monday, and this 9 dollar piece of crap interim replacement is causing me a lot of typos. Ironically, I'm running Windows XP on this machine ;) Courcelles 22:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Riiiiigggggghhhhhhht. That's what they all say! I have to switch several times a day, so quite often have moments when keyboard shortcuts don't work, or I can't find ", @ or ~. pablo 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The irony is my LAST keyboard switch forced me into one of those ergonomic ones from Microsoft. For weeks. I couldn't tyoe anything on it, now with a standard one, I'm making yet more typos. Stop moving my cheese, universe, or at least my keys... Courcelles 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Jerusalem motion

Hi Courcelles. I was wondering if you saw my comments at the RFAR page about the idea of a binding RFC, and would ask that you consider an alternative, such as how the dispute on Verifiability was handled. Use mediation to come up with clear proposals for the community, then take it to a binding RFC. At the very least, regular mediation should be attempted again. I'm unconvinced that a straight binding RFC would be productive - historically most have been train wrecks. Please think it over. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It is an interesting idea, to be sure, but the problem with mediation is that it quickly becomes unworkable and unusable for outside voices, which is something this dispute needs badly, experienced editors who know the policie, but don't usually edit the article. Courcelles 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That may be the case, but my experience with the I/P articles is that people are reluctant to get involved because of the environment that exists in the topic area. The other thing I note is that the arbitration motion directs the community to set up the process, which in the past has had varying results. An RFC format is too free-form for a dispute of this nature. I think that mediation should be used to develop alternate proposed lede sections, like in the verifiability mediation, then followed by an RFC that is binding. It would create a more productive discussion. Please consider. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello Courcelles, I hope this messages finds you well and your holidays are doing well. I see that you were the administrator that deleted a page that I created for Justin B. Terry-Smith. I want to revive it BUT of course with your persmission. This time I would make sure that there are more sites and references. I believe one of the issues last time was that it did not have a lot of reliable references. This time I would really like to try to keep his page up and I have also found a picture of him on the Wiki Commons website. I believe I can use this pic instead of finding one of him and getting permission from an outside source. Here is the site where I found his picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justin_B_Terry-Smith_-_DC_Gay_Pride_Parade_2012_(7171057087).jpg if this is granted I wanted to thank you so much and also thank you for even reading my post and request to you.

(Jsmithco98 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)).

I've emailed you the last version of the article prior to deletion. The problem with the article isn't images, it is reliable sourcing, and if you can improve that some, I'd see no harm in putting the article back and re-running the deletion debate, as it shows the lack of quality sourcing was the major issue with the article. Courcelles 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP 109.155.51.148

I noticed that you had applied a "checkuserblock" to this IP, possibly in connection with a sockpuppet investigation. The IP is connected to indefinitely blocked users Google6666/Google9999 [9], as can be seen here [10], where the IP identifies himself/herself/itself as Google9999. So if the block on the IP is connected to a sock puppet investigation those socks ought to be added to Google6666's list of known aliases. Thomas.W (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I blocked the IP for a good reason, as other CU's can easily verify,however, it isn't in line with policy for me to state whose IP it is without a pressing need. And the idea of tagging socks is somewhat controversal; I'm rather of the mind that it doesn't help anything and actually just increases attention to the sockmasters in a negative way -- there is an attention motivation for them and we are feeding it by building large numbers of tagged userpages -- User talk:Lockheart1 is just as useful. Courcelles 18:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. I'm trying to keep track of him/her because I'm tired of tidying up after him/her. For the same reason I'm also trying to keep tracks of another indefinitely blocked user with a number of socks, Agunter999, who compared to Google6666/9999 et al walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, with the same miserable grammar and spelling, and also geolocates to the same area, even though he/she vandalized edited other pages than Google6666/9999. Thomas.W (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign Denizen

Is it really a good idea to semi-protect an AfD to protect against participation by sockpuppets? WP:AFDFORMAT says that "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion". I think the closing admin would be able to figure out which commenters are sockpuppets because of their weak arguments or because other editors will point them out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It is what we always do when socks are actively votestacking, to prevent more work, and more bad arguments, from attacking the discussion. 14 days with nothing but socks and the nom means it needed a clean break -- what new users are actually going to show up to this AFD that aren't more socks or meatpuppets? Courcelles 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
  • Merry Christmas, Michael! Courcelles 20:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Courcelles! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC) &Thank you; I hope yoiu had a happy time with your family yesterday! Courcelles

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Happy holidays

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


  • Aaah, music... the number of traditional carols I heard this year has to be the lowest ever, and I don't even think I noticed until now that fact... Courcelles 22:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Round My Family Tree

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round My Family Tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, Courcelles, you closed the abovd AfD as a merge on December 17. Within hours, User:Buck Winston, who nominated the article for deletion, redirected the article to the merge destination article, The Tigger Movie, without merging any content. I have no interest in any of the articles, but I noticed it because Buck was on my watchlist from an earlier block. I reverted Buck's redirect. He has again done the same thing today, with an edit summary in which he says, explain what can be merged before undoing.

I don't know what the proper course of action is in these circumstances. The AfD attracted very little attention, which seems to be the case with the merger. Because of the bot, the Talk page of the destination article states that the merger actually took place, which is not true (not sure why those templates work that way).

I'm not going to take any further action until I hear from you. Hope you're enjoying your holiday break.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The problem I see is that the AFD'ed article was largely unsourced, so he may well have a point that there is little to merge in without also merging in problems, but the paperwork having been done on the talk page means that anyone who DOES want to merge something in can just do it, without touching the old article at all. Courcelles 21:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As long as you're okay with it, I'll go fret about something else.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Need help, please

Am working on this CCI and while checking files, ran into this one which has been transferred to Commons. When you read the en.WP copy of the file, this user's name appears as the person receiving the photo, but when you go to the file at Commons, the history shows that the photo was sent to this user, who is the subject of the CCI and suspected of socking. This user is not blocked and edited last on 7 October 2012. AFAIK, there was no OTRS done for the photo and I'll note it as such; the issue also seems to be whether the user who is not the subject of the CCI may be another identity of the person who is the subject of it. Can you help? Thanks, We hope (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Barnstarbob is stale, so not sure how much CU can help here. I'm going to undelete the enwp file for a few hours to let you examine the full history here, which might show a little more clarity... Courcelles 02:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much! I see from this that the user who uploaded the file is not the same person; BB merely did some editing of the photo and was "credited" with it when it was moved to Commons. If you don't mind, I'd like to link this conversation to the CCI page as it appears the file doesn't really belong in it. Thanks again!! We hope (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I agree, Commons just got the credits wrong, which is understandable based on the file's upload history. Courcelles 17:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK-have linked this conversation to the CCI page. If it's a problem, these guys File:Beatles in Birmingham 1963.jpg said they'd help us out. :-) We hope (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another obvious sock

User:Chromium Oxide has only made two edits, just to rag on Malleus. Is it the same sockmaster as the one who was doing that a little over a week ago?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that I've indefblocked the account. --Rschen7754 01:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I started an SPI for sockmaster "unknown" earlier (and I find, that is a real user name...) but I think a CU is warranted, as that is the only way to connect the dots. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Checking Courcelles
      • Hackney Hound, sure looks like. No sleepers are obvious at the moment. Courcelles 02:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I did not realize Dennis has opened an SPI. Given that it unintentionally names an innocent editor that should be handled somehow.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • All better, now. Deskana has a different interpretation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chromium Oxide, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Deskana is right, the CU took is somewhat useless here. The tie to Hackney Hound is at technically only similar location, but the behaviour was what struck me as him before even running the CU. Courcelles 04:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bah, I hate this template

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.

--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • And a reply. Courcelles 17:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Followed by a heartfelt thank you. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Deathlaser

Hey, Courcelles, User:Deathlaser is on IRC, asking for an unblock. (Obviously not the right venue for requesting one, but whatevs.) I see that you originally blocked him as a sockpuppet, but is this a checkuser block, or just a normal block? I don't want to point him in the wrong direction. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Moe Epsilon also asked BsZ about this, since he was the last person to modify the block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I think there are a couple CU blocks in the master's history. Why is he asking for unblock for a no-edit sock, though? He's got plenty of socks with edits... I'd direct him to BASC, myself. Courcelles 20:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: Nevermind, he acknowledged that he was a sock, so it's a moot point now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Socks

We've got another two (or more?). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Where? Courcelles 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Never mind - Salvio giuliano took care of the blocks, and I can ask him to oversight the offensive comment/s as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, good. Courcelles 02:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I suppose I may as well as you as well and whoever has time can get to it first - would you mind revoking the guy's talk page access and oversighting the rape threats? [11] [12] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This one too, if you don't mind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Done for all three Courcelles 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hey, could you please move/merge User:JuneGloom07/Sense with Sense and Sensibility (2008 TV miniseries) for me? - JuneGloom Talk 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 02:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I realise now that my request probably came at the wrong time, were you celebrating the new year? - JuneGloom Talk 14:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Keep up the great AfD work! Make sure that your not edit conflicting yourself though. ([13][14][15]) -- Cheers, Riley 01:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Bundling

Hello Courcelles, hope your having a good new year. Will you consolidate these (SBS Transit Service 243, SMRT Service 307, SBS Transit Service 143, SBS Transit Service 151, SBS Transit Service 284, SBS Transit Service 163) AfDs into one AfD, similar to what you did with Nordic skiing. They're all similar & have had no input thus far, the first one listed above is the initial one. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The Skiing AFD's were a unique case, all the articles almost by rule must meet the same fate, as the question there was whether an article that covers three sports at the Winter Olympics is needed. Bus routes are discretionary, most aren't notable, some are. And with an AFD nomination statement this poor (It appears to assume that bus routes can NEVER be notable), each needs individualized attention to sort which are which category. A split result here would make logical sense, so there's no harm in letting the AFD's run separately. For the Olympics ones, a split result would have been nonsensical. Courcelles 19:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok fare enough, thanks for a response on matter. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Anytime Courcelles 01:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Courcelles: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India

You relisted this AfD. It appears that a consensus had already been reached prior to you relisting it. Please would you elaborate on your rationale for relisting it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Because all of the keep arguments are classical WP:INHERITED arguments. Statements like "As such, it is my opinion that any reliable third-party book that examines his life and philosophy should be deemed to meet the broad notability criteria of Wikipedia." are not how we work here, and have no bearing on how the debate should be closed -- in fact there is not a single valid keep argument made here, all three such comments are handwaves at INHERITED, and thus cannot be called a consensus in any formm. Courcelles 16:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Hi, Courcelles. You participated at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill discussion. The result of that discussion was to merge the List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The list was merged. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

FYI

Hi Courcelles, you semi protected Christopher Robin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just after it had been PC protected by User:Darkwind. I've made a request at WP:RFUP that one of them be lifted. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Smoke or Fire - The Speakeasy

I don't know if it's too late, but could you userfy The Speakeasy (Smoke or Fire album) for me? I want to see if I can get it it up to snuff to stick around this time.Jasper420

Scotland

Hi! Last year, in 17 March 2012 you removed Scotland move-protection, I guess by TW error. I'm contacting you in to let you know if you want either, you re-add it or you left it as it is and let's see how it goes. And welcome back. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Silly twinkle error... I've readded the move protection. Thanks. Courcelles 14:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Ryoung122's talk page access

I received an email from Ryoung122 (talk · contribs), whom you blocked from editing his own talk page in September. He wants to plea for a modification in his block length from indefinite to something more definite. Would you object if I unlocked his talk page for that purpose? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the history of the arbcom case and the socking, the extent of which cannot be made public, he likely should be just sent directly to BASC. Courcelles 00:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I replied to his email and sent him there. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Restore a deleted article

Sir, can you please restore this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conqueror_Browser so that I can edit the article with further links and sources and updates about new versions. Thanks a lot akashtaker001 14:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Hiya. You relisted one AfD for a fourth time (which isn't supposed to happen) and failed to make a call on another with a more than adequate number of responses to forge a policy-based consensus, holding it over instead. I'd suggest that if you're not ready to pull the trigger on an AfD needing a close, you leave it for somebody who is. Thanks. —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, it's Mr. Stradivarius who held over the one needing a call, my apologies. The sentiment remains that we need fewer extensions and more decisions at AfD. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
IIRC, the one I relisted for an extra time had gotten no commentary other than the nomination whatsoever... Courcelles 01:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Matty Staudt

Someone (70.239.199.2) identifying himself as Matty Staudt recently posted at the Help Desk, asking "My page, Matty Staudt, was deleted and it seems it was a speedy delete by the foundation. I work in media and it is importan that I have my page up. Can this be remedied?"[16] You prod deleted the page.[17] There is US State News September 27, 2006 and Mobile Internet October 1, 2009. There may be other source material that could be found during AfD. I know its not much, but the person indicated that the deletion has had some effect on his life. Given that 70.239.199.2 is contesting the prod and this new source information, perhaps we can send the Matty Staudt article to AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actresses categories

Thankyou for adding people to actresses categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Anytime. Categories are... relaxing to me. (Proof of my insanity, perhaps?) Courcelles 06:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD relist

Why did you relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix (wargaming magazine)?  Note that there is followup commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endeavour Programme.  As per WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, "...a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."  The comment attempting to rebut the speedy keep is another proof by assertion.  Now that two editors have joined the conversation, I am not suggesting that you should change anything at this AfD, and I expect to change the speedy keep to a comment.  The point is that there are 350 related AfDs in the pipeline, and that IMO relisters have a role to play in closing substandard discussions.  To repeat a couple of sentences of the comments linked above "Speedy keeps are generally closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination, and one of the purposes of such a closure is to allow the nominator a chance to properly prepare or improve the deletion argument.  Leaving such AfDs open for any longer than necessary poses a risk that subsequent editors will invest time in a substandard discussion that could already have been closed for improvement."  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The speedy keep call was invalid. Read speedy keep criteria two again, "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." The first clause is non-negotiable for a SK 2 close, that the nomination has to be in bad faith. These nominations don't come anywhere close to that standard. Yes, Boelyn's nominations created a ton of work, but she does advocate a reason for deletion, and is not acting in bad faith, so there's no grounds for a speedy keep. Courcelles 19:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • First of all, I do not see anyplace in SK#2 that says that a proponent must show the existence of bad faith.  Second, adding an implied requirement to SK#2 that a proponent show the existence of bad faith would be an unworkable standard.  WP:AGF states, "Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might exacerbate resentments all around."  The standard for bad faith is to assume good faith.  Consistently, the already-quoted definition of disruption at WP:AFD does not require the existence of bad faith to establish disruption.  Please adjust your analysis to remove the idea that SK#2 requires a showing of bad faith.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Read it again, then. It says "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and". And, meaning whatever follows that statement, any SK 2 must meet that first clause. If the nom isn't vandalism or disruption beyond any question, it can never be an SK 2. Courcelles 00:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You seem to think I am missing something, yet I have already documented in links provided the issue to which you want me to attend.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, you are. SK 2 plainly requires that bad faith or disruption be self-evident. So why would you argue Boelyn's nominations met Sk 2? (And simply making a large number of nominations is not proof of disruption or bad faith.) Courcelles 00:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Though I might be willing to accept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endeavour Programme is an SK 1, it still isn't an SK 2. Courcelles
  • (edit conflict) WP:AGF states that it is usually best to address conduct without mentioning motives.  We can assume that the nominator acted in good faith in these nominations and add no conflict with SK#2.  I hope we can move away from discussing faith, good faith, and bad faith now.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Faith matters because you asked for an SK 2, and there is no such thing as an SK 2 for a good faith nomination. It's a unique thing here, but unless you're absolutely convinced there is bad faith/disruption, you can't do an SK 2. Dodging the faith question invalidates the whole idea of an SK 2. Courcelles 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The previous comment begins by talking about "faith" and then in a non sequitur adds the term "bad faith/disruption".  Is it your position that good faith disruption is acceptable at AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC}
  • If course not, though it is exceedingly rare at the nomination stage. So rare, that outside the unique case of the April Fool's foolery, I'm not sure I've ever seen a "good faith disruptive" nomination. Courcelles 01:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The issue with defining "unquestionable disruption" is that of having an operational definition.  Is it your claim that there is no disruption here?  Otherwise, please review the analysis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis, which places "unquestionable disruption" starting at between two to ten nominations where the nomination is constructed with two arguments from WP:ATA, a proof by assertion, and no evidence of following WP:BEFORE.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "which places "unquestionable disruption" starting at between two to ten nominations". No, you did that, by pullign numbers out of thin air, and really, really low numbers at that. And, really, while I see Boelyn's noms as less than best practices, I don't see any real disruption here. Courcelles 01:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That doesn't quite end the conversation, since your definition of "disruption" in the context of SK#2 is not the same as mine.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Is more discussion going to broaden my definition of disruption to match yours? Or narrow yours? If the answer to both of those is no, then, well, it sort of does end the conversation... at some point discussions aren't going to be much benefit, and I think we might be there; we know what the other thinks, and just disagree. (One thing to remember is that the project doesn't need to be protected against these nominations. They are AFD's, not PROD's. They're not going to go anywhere unless at least one uninvolved user agrees with deletions; where PROD's go in a week unless someone says "no, keep this", AFD's need the second voice, which removes any need to shut things down by administrative fiat.) Courcelles 02:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hypothesis: the project does not need to be protected from substandard AfD nominations

  • Your otherwise-unmarked parenthetical addition, after this discussion had reached a stopping point, has brought me back to this page.  I think you are incorrect that allowing substandard AfD nominations does not affect the project.  Substandard nominations are substandard because they don't prepare the discussion for the community.  That means that participants in AfDs with substandard nominations must pick up the slack.  Or worse, participants don't pick up the slack.  That is why it is important to close down substandard AfDs and get the nomination up to snuff.  Doing so improves the quality of the discussion, saves the time of participants, and in some cases the nominator will realize that the discussion was unnecessary.  (An exception exists in the case of a "high-risk" article, such as a BLP.)  In the past I have estimated that keep arguments require roughly ten times the effort of delete arguments (see the AfD for Taquan Air for an example), so there is a bias away from WP:PRESERVE in the presence of a large number of substandard AfD nominations.  So the more-likely scenario is that substandard AfD nominations drain the time of volunteers away from productive work, and bias the content of the encyclopedia away from preservation.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You may have a point, however, your view is not that of the current community's will through policy. The community decided they wanted AFD's basically dismissed without discussion in certain very limited circumstances. Basically, it results in the speedy keep criteria being akin to the criteria for speedy deletion, which boils down to the practice basically being "if you have to think too much about whether to speedly delete something, you shouldn't." Both boil down to the end result where, if done correctly, no reasonable user would disagree with the decision reached. My point wasn't that we want low-quality deletion noms, but that nothing is going to get deleted based solely on one -- an AFD nom is akin to riding a bus down the interstate at meal time; you might toss out what you want, but unless you convince a few folks you're right, you're not getting your way, that is one of the beauties of our AFD system, and what Boelyn did was far better than running around throwing up hundreds of poorly-researched PROD tags; apathy at PROD results in deletion, apathy at AFD produces an WP:NPASR close. That's why we don't need to protect the project against poor AFD noms.
  • The other problem with a hypothetical situation allowing admins to dismiss sub-standard AFD noms is that it wouldn't solve anything, and would waste tons of electrons on which closes were right and which should have been allowed to run. Both sets of speedy criteria are written and designed to be applied exactly as they are written, and either so black and white, or such a high burden, that no one will be able to make a reasonable argument that the admin erred; both are designed to be so unambiguous that no one who knows the policy will be able to argue -- because deletion is a community process, and the speedies are express lanes to getting the obvious stuff done. (Also consider how much time we would waste if admins wre allowed to shut down AFD noms they considered "substandard". Tons and tons and tone; because that label is so subjective, and that's not what speedies are for.) Courcelles 08:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've already determined that you have a definition of the meaning of disruption based on internal motives.  I have stated (my opinion) that such a viewpoint is unworkable and cited a policy.  Nor would such a viewpoint be supported by the field of behavioral psychology.  "The primary tenet of behaviorism...is that psychology should concern itself with the observable behavior of people and animals, not with unobservable events that take place in their minds."  Your opinion is that of one human being, and subject to the argument from authority fallacy.  This tool indicates that you have never made a !vote in an AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That tool is completely and utterly useless. It only looks at the last 50 AFD's a username has edited, whatever that edit was to accomplish. As the instructions say, "The tool searches through the wikitext of AfD pages which have been edited by the Username specified below, and attempts to find their vote by searching for their signature on the page.", so it is worthless on users who often touch AFD's to close, relist, or sort them. (Many toolserver things, as a general rule, are not very useful when ran on a user with over 100,000 edits, because of the sheer amount of data to analyses.) Courcelles 22:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, that helps, thanks.  I was able to fiddle with the date parameter and get some results.  After looking at about five AfDs, I wish all participants at AfD had your skills and attitude.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I take your point about the relationship of PRODs and WP:PRESERVE.  It appears that in addition to preserving the encyclopedia, I have a specific concern about preserving the time of AfD volunteers.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I see little similarity between Speedy deletes and Speedy keeps, nor is their any functional purpose to trying to relate them.  Speedy deletes are a function of and applied to articles, while speedy keeps are a function of and applied to XfD discussions.  Comparing the talk pages of speedy delete and speedy keep shows that one has ongoing discussion, the other is relatively quiet.  Speedy keeps are commonly misunderstood, confused with "strong keep" and "snow keep".  Speedy keeps would be better understood by formally renaming them to Speedy closes.  We also have a similar concept "Procedural close" that is sometimes used.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A speedy keep NPASR applied to a fresh AfD, and allowing that the topic is not a high-risk topic, has virtually no negative impact on the project.  I expect that three speedy closes a day NPASR applied to substandard AfDs would rapidly improve the quality of AfD nominations and discussions.  Using SK#1, it is not necessary to invoke WP:IAR to find three such nominations daily.  I encourage you to begin to do so, or encourage one of the admins to do so.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi, would you please consider a revision deletion on the following, due to grossly insulting material? [18] Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Done, and blocked the IP in question. Courcelles 05:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review on Wildebeest

Hi Corcelles. How are you doing? I have started a deletion review on Wildebeest after my request for it's undeletion was denied and I would like you to check it out. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:33, January 21 2013 (UTC)

  • Noted, thanks, though there's not a lot I can add at the moment. Your DRV would be much more persuasive if you focused on secondary sourcing for the topic, rather than making an in-universe argument about different characters and appearances. If you could show some secondary sourcing, we might not even need the DRV at all. Courcelles 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
What's the secondary sourcing that you would like me to do? Rtkat3 (talk) 3:06, January 21 2013 (UTC).
We need to see out-of-universe sourcing on fictional topics. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a good introduction to what I'm talking about. Courcelles 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Outside of any references that were on that page at the time of it's deletion, websites like Titanstower.com (which was the page's external link for the Wildebeests) and Comic Vine have provided the information revolving around the different Wildebeests that appeared in DC Comics (Comic Vine had sorted the Wildebeest Society from Baby Wildebeest and any other Wildebeests on it's website) and a version of one of those Wildebeests had appeared in Teen Titans. Also, Wildebeest under it's Wildebeest Society was listed on the Teen Titans template with the other villains before it's deletion. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:03, January 21 2013 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that DGG has temporarily restored the Wildebeest page to further the deletion review. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:46, January 22 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's standard practice. Courcelles 17:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Jessica Ennis

Hi Corcelles, in the Socrates page (which is semi-protected), I would like to suggest adding the following final paragraph to the Later Historical Effects section:

Over the past century numerous plays about Socrates have also focussed on Socrates’ life and influence. One of the most recent has been Socrates on Trial: A play based on Aristophanes' Clouds and Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, adapted for modern performance.

In the Further Reading section, I would also like to suggest adding:

  • Irvine, Andrew David (2008). Socrates on Trial. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-9783-5 (cloth); ISBN 978-0-8020-9538-1 (paper).

Thanks.

--

Hi Corcelles - The protection of Jessica Ennis has expired and there have been two instances of vandalism already. Please can you re-apply the protection?

  • I'm monitoring it, I don't think we're there just yet, but if it keeps happening, my protect button is ready/ Courcelles 21:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot

It seem that you use a bot ! It's true? --Gac 06:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Not? No, That's a script Commons admins use when we move images, because for whatever reason, moved images don't work reliably until their links are changed, so the same script that performs the move, also uses SUL and goes and does the moves on the other projects. It is part of this script, which I'd assume almost every Commons admin has turned on, as it cuts down on the tedious parts of being a Commons admin. Courcelles 19:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks :-) --Gac 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion re: the exclusion of the National Women's Soccer League on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and provide your feedback? Discussion is available here. I'm seeking some impartial feedback from an administrator. Thank you for your consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Ennis

Hi Corcelles - The protection of Jessica Ennis has expired and there have been two instances of vandalism already. Please can you re-apply the protection?

  • I'm monitoring it, I don't think we're there just yet, but if it keeps happening, my protect button is ready/ Courcelles 21:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot

It seem that you use a bot ! It's true? --Gac 06:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Not? No, That's a script Commons admins use when we move images, because for whatever reason, moved images don't work reliably until their links are changed, so the same script that performs the move, also uses SUL and goes and does the moves on the other projects. It is part of this script, which I'd assume almost every Commons admin has turned on, as it cuts down on the tedious parts of being a Commons admin. Courcelles 19:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks :-) --Gac 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Socrates

Hi Corcelles, in the Socrates page (which is semi-protected), I would like to suggest adding the following final paragraph to the Later Historical Effects section:

Over the past century numerous plays about Socrates have also focussed on Socrates’ life and influence. One of the most recent has been Socrates on Trial: A play based on Aristophanes' Clouds and Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, adapted for modern performance.

In the Further Reading section, I would also like to suggest adding:

Thanks. (It would be best to propose this on Talk:Socrates using {{semiprotected}}, as I really don't have the background on the subject to easily figure out if your edit would be good or not. Courcelles 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC) --

Request for assistance

Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion re: the exclusion of the National Women's Soccer League on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and provide your feedback? Discussion is available here. I'm seeking some impartial feedback from an administrator. Thank you for your consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I honestly have no idea, here. We're talking about a league yet to play a game, and who we don't know everything about yet. I suspect this discussion will have a lot more ease after they begin play. Courcelles 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Courcelles - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Schola Latina Universalis - re-creation of article

Dear Courcelles, I have talked with Wikipedia editors who think that they can collect the nesessary sources, references and citations to prove Schola Latina Universalis is significant and notable enough to have an article about it on Wikipedia. If I make only a Google search on the exact words (between quotation marks) 105.000 finds on the exact name show that it has a name and a presence. What would be the procedure to restart the page, or what is your opinion? Thanks! --Gonda Attila (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Interesting, because there were a good umber of people calling for deletion, that none of them would mention that many Google hits -- GHITS being a common argument at AFD. How muchof the Google screen is actually of any merit? I didn't see anything on the first page that would be useful, t all... Courcelles 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There are a number of them that will certainly be relevant sources proving notability. The 3-4 persons who came forward at the same time for the article's deletion had apparently an agenda doing so. At least the initiator seemed to have. There are indications of some peculiar circumstances of the deletion here, worth reading. But to the point: my main question is if the article can be re-started or not, once the recreator commits himself to collect the necessary supporting references. --Gonda Attila (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Racepacket (again)

Back in July 2012 you blocked an IP address as a sock puppet of banned user User:Racepacket. The block expired a few days ago, and the same IP address is making the same edits to the same pages. So I've raised another sockpuppet investigation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Indeed. Given it a year this time. Courcelles 18:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sellwood Bridge

Thanks for going the extra step and updating the photo link here on enwp, when moving the file! -Pete (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem. For reasons I can't begin to understand, even though we leave the redirect on Commons, it works only sporadically on the projects other than Commons itself, so good housekeeping, and a hate of redlinks, sends us around. Courcelles 00:33, 1 February 2013 (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.

Help needed

I'm out of my depth with a Commons issue. Could you check your email? Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I think we got this sorted out :) Courcelles 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

ARS RFAR

I have withdrawn my request but you guys are still voting.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Heh, I'll ask the clerks to take care of it. Courcelles 21:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD debate ready to be closed

Hi Courcelles. Consensus has been reached at this AfD nomination. Can you please close it? Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • AFD closed, and article moved. Courcelles 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

small changes

Hi Courcelles. I appreciate your effort in changing all the file names in de:Bildtafel der Verkehrszeichen in Schweden etc. But wouldn't it be possible for you to make one big change innstead of making tons of small changes. That's cluttering up the watchlists and making it difficult to single out any problem edits in there. Thanks. -- TZorn (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I know the problem, but the edits on dewp (and sv, it, etc. wikis) are done automatically by the same Commons admin script that moves the files. I'm not going to dewiki and making edits, I'm moving files on Commons, and each time a file is moved, the script goes through the usage of that file, and changes it. Courcelles 07:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. I guess, in that case you should get a bot flag. -- TZorn (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

IP block exempt

A couple of years ago, I was granted the IP block exemption right to allow me to continue to edit, as another user on the network had been blocked and I had been caught in the autoblock. However, circumstances have now changed, so could you CheckUser me to see if I still require the flag and if not, remove it as per Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Thank you very much. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Worm That Turned suggested I take this to another CheckUser so I thought that you would be able to do this :)

  • While it doesn't look like your need for the flag is constant, there are a couple things that would lead me not to remove it in the CU screen, indeed once in the last few weeks, your editing was not interrupted because you had the flag. Courcelles 20:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeat offender

FYI, I spammed you again (OTRS related this time).--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Did you send it? Nothing came through... Courcelles 02:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I definitely sent it (yesterday, afternoon'ish). I'll dig up the ticket number again and try to piece together a somewhat cogent synopsis.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't bother. I found it, not in spam, in the automatic delete... Courcelles 04:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Not surprised, I think that's where most people direct my emails.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Not me! Anyway, replied. Courcelles 04:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming dilemma

Hey, hope you're well. I have a bit of a dilemma that I hope you can help me with. Yesterday, Neighbours announced they would be introducing a character called Brad Willis, however they previously had a character with the same name back in the early '90s. So, my problem is what do I call the article for the new Brad? - JuneGloom Talk 02:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC) (I'd use parantheticals like {1990's Neighbours character) and (2010's Neighbours character) with the current name being a dab page. Courcelles 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The problem has been solved now, apparently it is the same character coming back. - JuneGloom Talk 14:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Courcelles. In the process of making an inquiry at WP:RSN, I stumbled across a 2004 ArbCom decision that appears to be relevant to the source in question. I was hoping to ask someone with ArbCom for clarification on what the previous decision means, but an official request for clarification seems to be part of the dispute process. May I run my question by you first, or is there another forum I should consult? Thanks! Location (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  • This really might be worth a clarification request, because I can't imagine ArbCom would pass a rmedy today (or in the last six years) actually ruling on the usability of a source. That said, what is your question? If I don't know the answer (and I'm hardly the authority on ancient history!) I can run it up the flagpole, though al the arbs from that era are off the committee now. Courcelles 19:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I wasn't sure if inquiries like this should be made on individual talk pages or in public forums.
The decision appears to state that an editor can remove any material, whether it is a statement of fact or opinion and with or without in-text attribution, sourced to LaRouche publications. I was simply wondering if my interpretation of that is correct. After reading your response, I guess I also wonder if that would be considered a valid ruling today. (Disclosure: As far as I know, this is my first encounter with LaRouche-related material and I wasn't aware of any of the issues brought up before ArbCom in the past.) Cheers! Location (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that's what the remedy says, but IMO, it is 2004 nonsense that should be repealed if anyone asked, ruling on the usability of sources is not ArbCom's job, but the early committee passed a lot of remedies that we would never pass today -- one day bans? Beating people with sticks? (Not that case, but it WAS a joking remedy from the early Committee!) Courcelles 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Does ArbCom prefer to clean-up things like this, or are they typically tabled in order to address more pressing disputes and/or challenges? My own editing POV is likely supported by the 2004 ruling, but I can post an official clarification/remedy request if you think it is the right thing to do. Location (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hey, thanks for all the work at WP:AFD. You beat me in many of them! LlamaAl (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

evasion maybe?

Just a heads up since I see "some" indications of a block evasion. I could easily be wrong but since you had handled parts of the block I'm leaving it up to you. I see multiple edits since February 2012 (blocked since sep 2012) by anon editor 96.25.189.9 on tennis pages and longevity pages. There aren't a lot of editors interested in both topics. I'm not saying the edits are a problem but it's the exact same m.o. of indef blocked editor Ryoung122. Coincidence, maybe. He has asked multiple times to be unblocked, which I have no opinion on, but if the rules are no editing (even his talk page) while blocked, I thought I would at least bring this editing to your attention in case it's the same editor. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'm thinking you're on to something here. Let me look a little deeper tonight. Courcelles 22:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • After further looking, I'm convinced you're right. Blocked for a month. Courcelles 03:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Zakzoom1992

You forgot to put the block notice on Zakzoom1992's talk page. --Starship9000 (roller coaster fan) 01:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Talk page notes are never needed for long term sockmasters. The {{checkuserblock-account}} would have been displayed to him if e tried to edit from that account. Courcelles 02:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That account is a Ryan sock. And you blocked him. --Starship9000 (roller coaster fan) 02:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Your point? Courcelles 03:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Courcelles.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

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 March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

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 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 14:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Merge discussion

Would you mind taking a look at this merge discussion? It's gone on for more than a month and I think it's time that an uninvolved admin. closed it. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Atticus Mitchell

You deleted this article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atticus Mitchell and I have recreated it addressing, I believe, the concerns raised in the AfD. After 19 months I would not expect that a deletion review would be required as this is basically a new article, but I was advised at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Atticus Mitchell where I requested restoration of old revisions to contact you and see if you agree that I have met the AfD raised concerns or if I need to request a deletion review. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No need for a DRV, though I wouldn't be stunned to see a second AFD started by someone, such, if done, should run without any prejudice related tot he first one. (I personally would not start one, the relevant sources are 2012 dated, and the AFD was in mid-2011, which proves that AFD doesn't have much relevance on the current article.) Courcelles 04:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your evaluation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

Zach8604

You blocked this editor for disruptive editing and threatenibg behaviour about two years ago. He was, as i read the edits and userpage, twelve years old at the time. He is now, I think, fourteen, and from his unblock request seems to have grown up somewhat. I am minded to unblock, but would first value your opinion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My error; no space between name and number.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It might not be a terrible idea, if (and only if) he could actually produce a decent second chance article. The one he has written there doesn't belong in mainspace; the content is repetitive, the grammar is bad, and it is referenced to Wikipedia? His temperament may have changed (though his unblock request seems to "say what we want to hear" to me) but has his ability to write decent English? Courcelles 00:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

daylight savings time?

Maybe it's residual confusion from daylight savings time, but you're jumping the gun a little at AfD. Not that i have any problems with any of the closes, but its not a good example. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, sort-of-jet-lag; I was in a different time zone for the last week... Oops. (That said, I don't think I closed anything that close in either time or results to go through the rigmarole of undoing things) Courcelles 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
agreed. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1RR

Hi, Courcelles. In a dispute over an article's content, I believe a consensus if forming to implement 1RR as a means to ending an edit war and letting show the consensus' preference for the content in question. Can you comment on whether or not you think 1RR can be implemented (i.e. put in place like 3RR with violations subject to blocks) without ArbCom's involvement? Thanks! Location (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Of course 1RR can be put in place without ArbCom, but generally, they are enacted as community sanctions on a board like AN or ANI, rather than an article's talk page. Courcelles 23:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! Location (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the wrong redirect

Hello, Courcelles. I have several articles deletion: Kravtsov family, Talk:Kravtsov family and Pyotr Kravtsov‎, this articles was wrong redirect by some colleagues and now after I moved back content I don't know how to nominate them to deletion. Can I ask You for help with this problem? Best regards, Kravtz (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • What pages or redirects would you actually want deleted? There is usually no need to delete redirects where even a slightly somewhat plausible error is involved, esp. where there is transliteration involved. Courcelles 03:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I was talking about [[19]], [[20]] and [[21]], correct is KravtZov - its after time of escape from Russia after Civil War. But if its no need to delete, that's fine. I'm not every day on Wiki projects, so I don't know all the rules. Kravtz (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
      • S and z are plausable enough interchanges here, esp. for someoen who might have only heard the name, not seen it sepelled, so I'd leave the redirects as is. Courcelles 05:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Deletion

Courcelles

Please can you explain why you deleted the article entitled Future Cut in december?

[1]

thanks

(Thefrontroom (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

  • Anything that stays at WP:CP for seven days can be deleted, and this stayed on a CP page for around a month without being cleaned up. If you can produce a clean article, the old AFD would not be an impediment, as the AFD result was actually no consensus, but the copyright problems pushed to a delete. Courcelles 16:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [22]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Yoiu asked this question to everyone, so I'll just point you back to Kirill's and Risker's answers; there was indeed an individual, who is not (and never has been) an arb who raised this matter, we really can't say who it was. And everyone's vote is recorded on what was posted. Courcelles 21:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

unprotect request

Please unprotect Wikipedia:CheckUser; two years is an extremely long time, and it appears that good faith edit requests are being ignored on the talk page. (see Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Suggested_update)

Also, please either unprotect your talk page or provide "an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#User_talk_pages NE Ent 14:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I think the history shows that all WP:CU attracts is socks and nonsense when open to IP edits; and even that edit request sholdn't have been granted -- the page is not a guide to "how to fool CU" and edits like that make it much closer to that. Trust me, we all know better now about that incident. A seperate talk page is an interesting idea, though it seems pointless,as the sockmasters who wouldn't go away would just go make a mess of that one. I need to look around and see if that particular trouble is still around. Courcelles 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I think having a linked user talk page for IPs is more of a "policy" than an "interesting idea." As far as the CU page, while that particular edit may or may not be appropriate, the user at least deserved the courtesy of a reply rather being ignored. NE Ent 15:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If they had used the editsemiproteted template they would not have been ignored. Actually, I'm surprised it fell through the cracks on a lower-middle visibility talk page like that one, even as it was
      • I really don't know if that line has consensus, it is a really, really stupid idea. "Banned user won't go away, protect page, create page whose whole purpose precludes protecting to get rid of banned user." I'll try unprotecting this one, but I'm not at all optimistic. Courcelles 05:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Global accounts

Hi! How did you create your accounts on every wiki - did you use an automated tool, or just manually visit every site? I'm trying to figure out how people created them before Krinkle's tool came out in early 2012, for an investigation. (In case you haven't figured out, you're one of my go-to people who has a user page and account on almost every wiki ). --Rschen7754 02:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

Semiprotection of Rachel Maddow

Hi, Courcelles! I have a question about your semiprotection of the article Rachel Maddow. This article has been under persistent attack for the past week or so by a sockmaster, using multiple socks a day. First it was the talk page [23], then when that was semiprotected he switched to the article page.[24] The SPI is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoMontNW and is not yet resolved. I've been an interested spectator since some of the attacks have been directed toward pages on my watchlist. Today Bongwarrior, who has been wrestling with this sock for days, semiprotected the Rachel Maddow article page for a month. Shortly afterward you overrode that, semiprotecting the page on BLP grounds for only 9 hours. I'm wondering, did you mean to do that? Or was it accidental because the two actions came so close together? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I didn't notice the protect conflict, just the vandalism on my watchlist. That said, I didn't protect for nine hours, note I set the protection to expire in the year 2014. Courcelles 22:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Oops! Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't think I ever saw a year-long semiprotection before. Well, that should certainly deal with the vandalism! --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

SPI involving Rollosmokes

Since you blocked Rollo's last sock, User:Oogie Pringle, I thought you'd want to be aware of this current SPI, possibly involving Rollo. I am notifying you as the SPI clerk is asking for admin assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • That's him, I'm all but sure of it. Courcelles 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • As am I. He really needs to give up while he is behind. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • With the block of Other Side One (Rollo's new sock), would you mind going through his edits and reverting everything? I would, but I am still on restrictions, plus my rollback privileges haven't been reinstated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, not going to be happening, no time, no real idea if he was making things better or worse, and when I shut this thing down tonight, I won't be back until Sunday night. Courcelles 05:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • No worries. :) I was just handing things off to someone who could revert without restriction (like me). Enjoy your weekend off. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:29, 23 March 2013 (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.

Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • And you have a reply. Courcelles 05:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this

Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Navigator of the Seas

Arbitration question

Hello Courcelles,

A few months ago there was an arbitration request about Future Perfect at Sunrise where the arbitrator Sir Fozzie said that FPAS should make no more admin actions related to editors involved in the race and intelligence area, "or the next step WILL be to hand out sanctions." In the same request you said that a wider-ranging case is likely going to be necessary. Sir Fozzie seems inactive now, but I'd like you to please clarify something.

Future Perfect at Sunrise has not followed the instructions Sir Fozzie gave him. About a month ago he blocked my IP range with the explanation that it was to make me register, but the block itself was a hard block that disabled registration for my IP range. He refused to respond to other editors' questions about that inconsistency in my user talk, his own user talk, or in the AN thread another editor posted about it. This issue might seem "stale" now, but that's because his block made it so following his instructions to register took me a month. I finally was able to get an account just a few days ago.

Now that FPAS again did what he was told not to do, I think that "next step" mentioned by Sir Fozzie should happen now. But I don't know how to make that happen. Could you please explain what I need to do to get the arbitrators to address Future Perfect at Sunrise's irresponsibility with his admin powers? I also ask that you please explain what you meant by "a wider-ranging case", e.g. who it must include for you to accept it. Akuri (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to answer any clear details because of the potential for a case request, but SirFozzie was speaking for himself there, that was not a formal admonishment by the Committee or a restriction, and as SirFozzie is no longer an arbitrator, its relevance might be limited even more. My own comment was not directed at any individual editor, but at the race and intelligence topic area, which at the time, was one of arbcom's most perennial issues for the 2012 term. AS to FPaS, if you want Arbcom to take a fresh look at him, you can file a case request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, though I will make no prediction as to how that would end up (the general rules about the committee being the very last step in dispute resolution apply). Courcelles 13:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Afternoon,Corellas

It is I, Alison Weir. I am back. I demand the right to edit my article. By the way, I was born in 1954 not 1951.Yours,Alison Weir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.237.28 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013


Revert vandalism

I see that you blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.94.41.89

Could you please revert his vandalisms at NYU Poly and elsewhere please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateapply (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Someone else already has, though the block for that IP was 2 and a half years ago. Courcelles 04:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #51

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • The first 11 Wikipedias can now include data from Wikidata in their articles (If you want to see it in action see the infobox at it:Torino)
    • Worked on automatic summaries for statements
    • Worked on making properties accessible from the client using their label so you can use {{#property:executive director}} instead of {{#property:p169}} for example
    • Made qualifiers ready for the next deployment (Please test. See details further down.)
    • Selenium tests for qualifiers
    • Fixed some issues related to QUnit testing
    • Worked on improved handling and code design of multiple snak lists in the UI (qualifiers, references)
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • Newline 2013
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • We’re currently carefully monitoring performance after the deployment of phase 2 on the first 11 Wikipedias. There seem to be a few small issues. As soon as they are resolved we'll deploy on English Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are planned to follow very soon after that.
    • Bye and a big thank you to Anja, Silke, Jens and John who are leaving the development team at the end of the month and will work on other cool things. You’ll be missed!
    • Ever had any doubt about the possibilities of Wikidata? Talk to Wiri!
    • We worked on reducing the time it takes for Wikidata edits to show up in the Wikipedias and made some progress. Daniel posted an analysis
    • We started running a script on the database in order to make search on Wikidata case-insensitive. This should be finished in a few days and then search should be more useful.
    • In addition to the above we have rolled out a new search box that suggests items. This should also make finding things on Wikidata a lot easier for you.
    • We’re making some progress with Internet Explorer 8 support but there are a lot of issues with it (some outside our control). It’s unclear at the moment how much we can improve it still without spending an unjustified amount of time on it. You can follow the progress at bugzilla:44228
    • Edits are now auto-confirmed for users with more than 50 edits and account age 4 days: bugzilla:46461
    • Do you need old-style interwiki links for a sister project for example? This is for you
    • The Wikimedia Foundation applied as a mentoring organisation for Google Summer of Code again. We have proposed some Wikidata projects for students to take up if the Foundation is accepted again. At least 2 other organisations that applied also propose Wikidata ideas. More details on that once we know which organisations are accepted.
    • Denny hacked together a tree of life based on data from Wikidata
    • Wikidata was added to wikipulse
    • A template to retrieve data from Wikidata if no local value is set
  • Did you know?
  • Open Tasks for You
    • See note at the end of this weekly summary
    • Help test qualifiers (m:Wikidata/Notes/Data model primer#Qualifiers - see also example statements there) on the test wiki so we can roll it out with the next release
    • Did you file a bug report for Wikidata or did someone else do it for you? Please take a minute to check if it is still valid. (Thanks for filing it btw!)
    • Add some missing descriptions to those items with the same label?
    • Hack on one of these

Could I have 2 mins of your time? As I’ll be working on some other projects for Wikimedia Germany as well from now on the time I can spend on Wikidata will be reduced. This means I’ll have to figure out what is useful to spend time on. If you’re reading this could you let me know for example on this discussion page? Also if you have ideas how to improve the weekly summaries please post them. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk)

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boris_Pelekh

Hi there,

In 2010, you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boris_Pelekh as "redirect". The redirect target doesn't really make it clear why Boris is directly related to Nat & Alex Wolff, and I think it might be better to delete the Boris Pelekh article instead. I'm not sure whether WP:RDFD is the right venue, or whether you can amend the discussion conclusion and just delete the redirect instead. LFaraone 18:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Ugh... that likely should have been a straight delete. Not sure what I was thinking so long ago. I'm not sure I can really G7 it given it was an AFD and it was three years ago, though. Courcelles 22:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Wikidata weekly summary #52

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • The first year is over. Thank you everyone for being amazing and helping to build Wikidata and making it more than we could possibly have hoped for already. <3
    • Put a lot of work into improved support for Internet Explorer 8
    • Worked on improving recent changes code in client
    • Finished valueview refactoring. Created new extension “ValueView”
    • Implemented string formatter
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • upcoming: GLAM-Wiki 2013
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Deployment of phase 2 on English Wikipedia is currently planned for April 8. The remaining Wikipedias are scheduled for April 10. As usual this might change if we run into problems along the way.
    • There is now a page showing the current lag for changes propagating to the Wikipedias so they can show up in watchlists and recent changes for example. This should ideally be in the range of a few minutes. Right now it is higher because of some abnormally high bot activity but decreasing. Should be down to a few minutes soon.
    • There’s now a badge you can add to Wikipedia articles to indicate there is data about it on Wikidata
    • We hit Q10000000
    • A Wikidata item in the wild ;-)
  • Did you know?
  • Open Tasks for You

Based on feedback for last week’s call for comments we will continue this newsletter. However more community help will be needed. From now on they’ll be drafted at d:Wikidata:Status updates/Next and your help is very welcome.

Project for RfA nominators

Hi -- I notice you've been active in nominating at RfA over the past year, and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject for Nominators, which aims to support editors interested in nominating there. We'd be glad of your expertise in getting this new project off the ground. Apologies for the talk-page spamming if you've already seen this message a dozen times. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi Courcelles! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of WP:AN discussion

Hello Courcelles, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN#Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan. Appreciate your input, thanks! Zad68 18:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #53

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Got some external professional review of our code and architecture and started working on their feedback
    • Worked on reducing the dispatch lag (the time it takes for changes on Wikidata to be sent to the Wikipedias for display in watchlist, recent changes and to purge affected pages)
    • Worked on using Redis for job queue to improve the lag situation even further
    • Created new Wikibase Query extension for phase 3 functionality
    • Autocomments & Autosummaries for SetClaim module
    • Worked on the GeoCoordinate parser
  • Events/Press
    • right now: GLAM-WIKI 2013
  • Discussions
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Deployment of phase 2 on the remaining Wikipedias was delayed because of a high lag of changes being propagated to the Wikipedias. The lag has been reduced considerably now and is going down even more. The new date for deployment will not be next week because there are other large changes on Wikimedia infrastructure scheduled that we do not want to interfere with. It will hopefully happen very soon after that though.
    • Next code update on wikidata.org is planned for Wednesday. This should include qualifiers and bugfixes.
    • There will probably be a short outage/read-only for wikidata.org on Tuesday (database is being switched to MariaDB)
    • If you're a student and interested in coding on Wikidata consider applying for Google Summer of Code.
    • There is a new user right: property creators
    • There is now a page to request deletion of a property
    • We now have Bureaucrats
    • Reasonator was improved and extended (1 2)
  • Open Tasks for You

Based on feedback for last week’s call for comments we will continue this newsletter. However more community help will be needed. From now on they’ll be drafted at d:Wikidata:Status updates/Next and your help is very welcome.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Darius Dhlomo Drive

Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for oversighting an edit--I dream of horses @ 03:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, again

Another flower for not only protecting my userpage, but getting that I wanted it to be temprorary.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Create redirect

the page Darkorbit has been deleted last by you. I was thinking that it should be redirected to the page DarkOrbit. can you fix that? --Echoblast53 (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Given it was an AFD deletion, I'm not sure at all that the new title shouldn't be deleted as a G4, actually. In any way, caps different redirects are fairly useless, the search feature fixes them when they are looked for. Courcelles 15:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #54

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Dispatch lag is now down to 0 so changes should show up very quickly on the Wikipedias in watchlists and recent changes
    • wikidata.org now always redirects to www.wikidata.org. This should among other things solve the issue where people were not able to edit when on wikidata.org (bugzilla:45005)
    • Fixed weird blocked-user/protected-page handling in UI (bugzilla:45140)
    • Final meetings for the external professional review of our code and architecture. They were quite happy with the quality of the codebase and gave useful tips for improvements
    • Worked on automatic summaries for editing claims
    • Investigation of different JavaScript frameworks dealing with date and time
    • Worked on using Redis and the job queue for change notifications to clients
    • Work on the storage code for answering queries
  • Events/Press
    • GLAM-WIKI 2013
    • upcoming: office hour on IRC about sources
    • upcoming: Opensource Treffen
    • upcoming: intro to Wikidata at the British Library
  • Discussions
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

CU Request

Could you do a CU on User:Do Not Delete, checking him against User:98.204.145.138, User:Hollisz and User:Zimmermanh1997, please? SPI regarding this can by found here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  • There's nothing to check, the other two accounts are stale, and we don't link IP's and accounts. This one will have to be figured out on behaviour. Courcelles 18:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Darn, I was hoping that the IP/range would be enough. I think the behavior though will do just fine, even with just 7 edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking 2001:db8 - your thoughts?

Hi Courcelles. I'm giving some serious thought to unblocking this user - I'm inclined to believe his story, based on certain dissimilarites between him and his supposed sockpuppet (most glaringly, their completely different approach to edit summaries). Obviously checkuser will show a match, given the circumstances, so this a behavioural call. I'd appreciate your thoughts before I take any action. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that everything, and I do mean everything looks to me like a classic good-hand, bad-hand situation. The problem becomes that this is pretty much the same story we see in every single good hand, bad hand situation. No harm in unblocking and monitoring, but I'm quite skeptical, though much of that comes from the exact manner of how they look on the CU screen, which I can't discuss, for obvious reasons. Courcelles 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not too happy about overturning your block, in that case - you've been around the park a few more times than I have with regards to such issues, and your magic checkuser glasses show you more than I can see. In the interests of AGF, I'll go ahead and unblock, but with the proviso that if it happens again, it's likely to be an indef. Once is happenstance, etc. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Maria Kirilenko

Hi Courcelles. I found a decent 2011 pic of Maria for the article: File:Maria Kirilenko 2011.jpg. If you have time, can you do a quick Flickr review of it on Commons? INeverCry 21:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. INeverCry 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry

Dear Courcelles,

I do not understand why you gave granted Robotje - the reviewer - status as if you look at his talk page - there seems to be a list of people he argues with ! He does not seem to read the - References, Links and Sources - of the pages he criticices at all before he starts with his negative comments - which he has been doing on my newest page Adrianus Johannes Lemmens. He brings this wrong attitude from the Dutch Wikipedia web site where there is a very bad Cyber Bullying culture and I would have thought that we do not want that culture here ? Glemmens1940 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Most of that is a personal attack, either please substantiate it, or withdraw it. I notice you are indeffed on nlwiki; enwiki is not the place to continue any disputes that may have started over there. Courcelles 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry 2

I would like to know why you have deleted the lambda basketball wiki page?Ngbaus (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Can you link me to where the page was? Thanks. Courcelles 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Wikidata weekly summary #55

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

S'il vous plaît

Is it cool with you if I borrow the nifty code for your "AUSC former member" userbox? I promise I will not use it for nefarious purposes.... --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Help yourself :) Courcelles 21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Cheers! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Wikidata weekly summary #56

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Arbcom positions

Hey Courcelles. A number of us are asking abrcom members a few questions regarding a prior case here [25]. The questions are basically 1) did you vote on this ban appeal 2) if so how 3) or are you against releasing this sort of details to the community. Many thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

for your comment here. I have a busy day ahead IRL, but will follow up on this as soon as possible. (definitely within the next 24 hours if not sooner) — Ched :  ?  10:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi again. I honestly did have a tl;dr running through my mind today, but as this day has dragged on and tomorrow is starting to look like a similar monsterthis post may be lacking in clarity. Often weighing the options of posting on wiki with transparency to appease the masses vs. sending email with respect to privacy and reduced drama can be a difficult choice.
I recently made a block (after I'd left a warning earlier), and I was quickly treated to a rather abundant amount of talk page posts and email. While I was fully willing and able to respond to the person I blocked, the rush of requests caught me somewhat unprepared. I found this post to be somewhat disconcerting, and that's putting it as diplomatically as I can. As there was also an open ANI thread which prompted my actions, I also was attempting to follow events there as well. Over time, and after some research, a certain "theme" seemed to emerge in my mind. Much of it would be considered conjecture and speculation, so not fit for public consumption.
Being aware of the massive amounts of reading required of member arbitration committee, I do try to limit my correspondence to what I view as important items. Even then there have been times that I didn't receive a reply other than the automated bot. In fairness, ANY time I've noted my email on a talk page - I've received a reply, save one occasion where I was critical of an individual arb. Still, now that I'm aware of your willingness to review an email, I will take advantage of that in the next day or two to elaborate a bit, as well as your suggestion to use the "list" in future concerns.

Thank you Courcelles for your advice, your time, and your indulgence. — Ched :  ?  02:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched. In this particular case, I would have only recommended e-mail because at the end of the community comments period on wiki I copied all the comments into a word document and didn't look at the actual pages again -- six pages into one reduces the amount of windows one has to keep open, and unlike some folks I've seen, get me above six or seven tabs on Firefox and I spend more time squinting at which tab is which than getting anything accomplished. I don't know what would have happened with a late email as regards everyone reading it and considering it, but if a diff it contained had been concerning to anyone flagging it up in the arbwiki discussion of that candidate would have been trivial. Courcelles 12:56, 7 May 2013 (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.

- JuneGloom Talk 23:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2013



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #57

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  1. ^ 06:15, 15 December 2012 Courcelles (talk | contribs) deleted page Future Cut (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Cut)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_104&oldid=1171650413"