User talk:Courcelles/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Royal College Colombo

Hi,

In the last few weeks the article Royal College Colombo and other related articles have constant attempts to vandalize by recently registered users and non registered users. I noticed that you have put edit restrictions on Royal College Colombo two times and soon after it expired the vandalism has started. Is there any steps that could be taken to redress this issue. Cossde (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How about I "kick the can" three months down the road? Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That's longer than the last two protections by a good margin, and if problems resume, will be a good foundation for a much longer-term, perhaps even permanent semi-protection. Courcelles 13:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, lets see what happens. Hopefully this would lead to some constructive editing.Cossde (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong

I see you gave Ryulong a ban last month because of an edit war on the Super Mario RPG page. Think you can give him another please for instigating an edit war on pages relating to Samurai Sentai Shinkenger, and Power Rangers: Samurai - he's putting WP:OR ahead of common sense and WP:BLUE, reverting all attempts to mention that Shinkenger is the basis for PR Samurai, and when somebody tried to add PRS to Shinkenger's template, he responded "NOT FUCKING CONFIRMED!" and reverted it. I've had enough. Digifiend (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

He's not broken the 3RR, so there's nothing here I want to get involved in. Feel free to try ANEW or AN/I, but I see nothing actionable from an administrative standpoint. Courcelles 22:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi Courcelles. User:Diannaa suggested that I ask you to indefinitely semi-protect my user page. Lately, I have not been feeling a creative spark for editing articles, so I have been doing my part by performing a lot of vandalism patrol. Consequently, my user page is starting to see some vandalism. Since no one other than I should be editing that page in the first place, I was hoping to get it semi-protected. However, I do not want any protection of my talk page. I prefer to treat vandalism there as if it were a serious enquiry by another editor and answer accordlingly. I find it can defuse a situation.

If you can indefinitely semi-protect my user page, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

— SpikeToronto 05:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have done it, but someone else beat me. Good day. Courcelles 10:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I thank you profusely! — SpikeToronto 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you're talking about yourself in the third person

Does Courcelles remember how he got his edits reassigned after his rename? I've come across another editor having similar problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If he recalls, since he had some 50,000 edits, it just took a month, then happened. There might have been a bugzilla somewhere, though. Courcelles 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Attila article

after you had blocked Finn Diesel, the page has been switched into Richard Keatinge one byuser:Nuujinn.. --Vlad Tepetaklak (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Nuujinn made one revert, within the limitation, way back 11 days ago. No one other than a bot has edited the article since. I'm not sure what you want me to do here. Courcelles 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lift and carry

Since I presume you did read the talk page before deleting it, how about you make the redirect I asked for on the talk page? Tijfo098 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

FLC

I've found a reliable source, so the source in question has been removed on Ciara discography. Could you give your view on whether to support or oppose now? Candyo32 23:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

List of 1992 Summer Olympics medal winners

In case you are interested, I just created List of 1992 Summer Olympics medal winners. I saw that you have worked very successfully on Olympics-related lists in the past, so I thought I would give you a heads up! Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting. The Summer lists of this series are going to be much more work than the Winter ones (I'm currently stymied on 1956 Cortina, as a matter of fact). This is going to take a lot of work to get to FL standards, but if you want to work at it, I'm sure we can do it. The events aren't totally right, as an example off the top of my head, I know synchronised swimming competed in solo and duet routines in Barcelona- there was no team event until Atlanta. (No Softball yet, either. That was first contested in Atlanta) Women didn't compete in Modern Pentathlon until Sydney, and the team event was still on the Programme in Barcelona. I'll give it an actual look with sources this weekend. Courcelles 00:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was really just giving you a heads up in case you were interested and enjoyed working on the lists. I am sure these are best completed by a collaborative effort, however, since they do take a lot of work. Feel free to take a look at it or even plug away at it if and whenever you feel like it! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language II

Hi,

The 1RR has slowed down the edit war, but nationalists continue to deny that Croatian is Serbo-Croatian, despite failing to provide any RS's on the talk page. (They currently claim that standard Serbian is based on Croatian.) I've upped the protection to RC2. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How can you grace strangers with names, before you even get to know them -- never mind their motivation? "Assume good faith," as they say. --VKokielov (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

These editors demonstrate their motivations at WP-hr, where they express outrage at how WP-en is engaging in cultural genocide of the Croatian nation by stating the obvious, that Croatian and Serbian are formally a single language, as supported by dozens of RSs. Anyone who denies the Truth by reporting the consensus of the linguistic literature is a "mercenary" for the Serbs, or perhaps a "fascist", and must be fought for the survival of the Croatian people. Any Croat who sides with us (and there are several) is a traitor to his nation. The nationalistic and paranoiac overtones are obvious.

Nonetheless, I do assume good faith. These people are for the most part fighting in good faith for what they believe in; the only problem is that they are immune to rational argument. (For the most part. There's been at least one convert.) — kwami (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually quite confused at this whole decision here in three fronts. 1) There has never been a consensus to use PC2 anywhere in the encyclopaedia. 2) You used admin tools in a dispute in which you are involved, in contravention of WP:INVOLVED. 3) Even if PC2 were established practice, implementing it would not reduce the number of reverts, since any rejected edit must still be actually reverted, which counts against the 1RR. This action needs to be reverted, and editor-level sanctions perused by an uninvolved admin or the AE noticeboard. Courcelles 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, reverted. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars, 10RR without ARBMAC?

Hi, Courcelles. I've noticed this today. Some things must be reconsidered here.
You've blocked user Croq [1] on 25 Aug 2010, and as I've seen, you posted [2] this and this [3]. Was the ARBMAC sanction imposed to Croq by a decision of a single admin or more of them?
Previously, Kwamikagami blocked Croq on 19 July 2010[4] because of violation of 3RR.
Now comes the important part.
Are these sanctions implied partially?
For the edit war on the very same article, user Chipmunkdavis got no sanction. Solely your warning [5] 01:06, 25 August 2010 . Nothing more.
But, user Chipmunkdavis wasn't blocked at all [6]. I've reported him because of deleting references on WP:ANI [7], mentioning his violation of 3RR.
WP:ANI was concluded by the involved admin [8] [9] [10] [11] (conflict with Croq [12]), Kwamikagami (that blocked Croq, but hasn't blocked Chipmunkdavis, that stood on Kwamikagami's side).
Chipmunkdavis also has very strange edit pattern.
Look at his presence [13]: few edits, absent for months, few edits, than explosion on article Serbo-Croatian since 17 July 2010; until then, no particular interest. Strange for non-speaker of that language. In fact he participated in edit wars!!! 7 reverts on 18 July!!!!? 10RR 23:05 17 July-00:09 19 July (10RR in 24h 5 min). And then on 23/24 July (4RR on 23 July). And he got away without ARBMAC? Please, type ctrl+F and "Undid revision".
Whome was he helping to avoid 3RR?
Was someone hiding behind that name, while keeping the master account "clean of edit wars"?
This is important, since You exactly told above to admin Kwamikagami that he "used admin tools in a dispute in which he was involved, in contravention of WP:INVOLVED."
2RR in less than 4 hours.
21:17, 11 July 2010 [14]
01:40, 12 July 2010 [15]
However, Chipmunkdavis remained clean after 10RR on edit wars 17-19 July (25 h 4 mins).
23:05, 17 July 2010 [16]
23:43, 17 July 2010 [17] (a revert, compare to [18] from 23:33, 17 July)
23:50, 17 July 2010 [19] (a revert war, compare to [20] from 23:42, 17 July 2010 )
00:05, 18 July 2010 [21]
00:15, 18 July 2010 [22]
00:28, 18 July 2010 [23]
00:53, 18 July 2010 [24]
23:23, 18 July 2010 [25]
23:45, 18 July 2010 [26]
00:09, 19 July 2010 [27]
After few days, same story.
00:01, 23 July 2010 [28]
00:05, 23 July 2010 [29]
00:47, 23 July 2010 [30]
23:31, 23 July 2010 [31].
Then he continued with removing the references from the article. He engaged in another edit war. 2RR in 8 mins, 3RR in less than 14 hours.
00:50, 26 July 2010 [32] (belittleing of first hand source, national bureau of statistics, censorship of data that are against his POV)
14:14, 26 July 2010 [33]
14:22, 26 July 2010 [34]
Next day, again removing the references that endanger his point of view. 3RR in 4 hours. No consensus, but he does dare to remove NPOV tag (proof for no concensus:several opponents, talkpage sections [35] [36] [37] [38]).
13:57, 27 July 2010 [39]
17:44, 27 July 2010 [40]
17:56, 27 July 2010 [41]
And there's more. Removing of NPOV, despite no consensus [42]
12:53, 9 August 2010 [43]
18:05, 9 August 2010 [44]
14:16, 10 August 2010 [45]
15:39, 10 August 2010 [46] (dispute is older than Chipmunkdavis says, see above)
03:48, 23 August 2010 [47]
09:40, 23 August 2010 [48](kind of revert)
17:50, 24 August 2010 [49]
10:46, 7 October 2010 [50]
A new area of interest. Croatian language. Some of his edit summaries are provocations per se or propagation of original work WP:OR.
18:40, 6 October 2010 [51] (revert)
04:53, 7 October 2010 [52]
12:00, 9 October 2010 [53]
14:37, 9 October 2010 [54] (censorship, removal of important data)
Another user expressed this suspicion [55].
Croq, Sokac121 (4RR on Croatian language, see gaming the system by JorisvS, Keristrasza and Taivo) and Jack Sparrow 3 were sanctioned with ARBMAC and blocked, while Chipmunkdavis remained unsanctioned over 10RR. And at the same time Kwamikagami that was in the conflict of interest, and conclude for yourself was he covering up Chipmunkdavis' edit wars ([56] message from 22:05, 29 July 2010, conclusion of WP:ANI). What sanction did he got for use of tools in conflict of interest and biased sanctioning? Kubura (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing one important technicality of ARBMAC. "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision." If someone hasn't been formally informed of the decision, they cannot receive sanctions under it. Chipmunkdavis had not previously received such a warning, so one had to be delivered, and then further misconduct must occur in order for sanctions to be applied in his case. Courcelles 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That widens the problem even more. Why hasn't Chipmunkdavis got the same warning? Who's covering him? Why does he always gets away with his (participation) in revert wars?

10RR's in area under ARBMAC's mandate and he got away with 10 reverts?

Finally, who put the warning on Sokac121's talkpage? At first, DIREKTOR. I won't waste time on him. Then, user Knepferle. [57] No activity since 29 Aug 2010. Another "user with strange edit pattern"?

Interesting is how did Knepferle takes sides (type ctrl+F and ARBMAC): whome did he put ARBMAC notice [58] and whome did he ask for opinion [59] (Kwamikagami, WP:INVOLVED) (see also [60]) and whome did he find as problem [61]. No warning for Chipmunkdavis.

So, in this case, the warner, Knepferle, wasn't neutral.

Knepferle is not an admin. Knepferle is not the committee. However, unknown number of users decided about Sokac's sanctioning with ARBMAC. Just because some "parachutist user" appeared out of nowhere and added ARBMAC notice, solely to one side, not to the other side.

Sokac got the sanction. Chipmunkdavis had a looong history of RR's and got away. I hope you understand now. Thank you for reading this message. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)