User talk:Coren/Archives/2011/September

Senkaku
In response to your diff here, please acknowledge a question here. --Tenmei (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hi my name arisha,i want to ask how to make my english subject increase??

Arisha aidilla (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 
 * A good place to learn and practice writing in English is the Simple English Wikipedia. It is made for people who are learning.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Amendment thread
I would appreciate it if you could respond to what I said here, and also to Ferahgo’s statement in that thread. If the rest of the arbitrators agree with what you’ve said there about an interaction ban being more likely to create additional strife, then I’ll accept that outcome, but in that case I think it’s reasonable for us to ask for some more specific guidance from ArbCom about how to handle this situation. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, but I think there's something significant you might be overlooking. I think your suggestion (that my conflict with Mathsci should be taken to dispute resolution) will not be allowed by my topic ban.  Please see my reply to you there. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of frustrating. You initially suggested that my topic ban be modified so that I’d have permission to start an RFC/U if Mathsci’s behavior towards me and Ferahgo doesn’t improve, which was reasonable. Then Cool Hand Luke and Roger Davies were discussing an interaction ban, which would have meant that giving me permission to start an RFC wasn’t necessary. Now opinion seems to have turned back against an interaction ban, but at this point everyone appears to have forgotten about your suggestion that I should be given permission to start an RFC if the problem doesn’t get better, and I’m being left with no instructions on what I should do if that happens.

As I explained in Cool Hand Luke’s user talk here, it doesn’t seem responsible to me for ArbCom to not give any thought to how I should handle this problem if it continues, which I think is definitely a risk because of the past history I mentioned there. Could you please offer some guidance on what I should do in that case, even if it’s just to remind the other arbitrators of what you suggested already? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Block of Geremia per abortion general sanctions
The block was logged here, like other blocks for violating these sanctions; does the block extension for socking also need to be noted? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's useful or necessary to do so for a short block like this. The extension was for another reason, I suppose.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - wasn't sure, and wanted to check in order to satisfy my compulsiveness to log things. :D –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Coren. Sorry to trouble you but I think more block evasion is occurring via,  ,  and  . Please advise. Thanks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ps.    just came up. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * *sigh*. Handling it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:72.200.71.7
Please note that an IP user within a range you recently blocked is requesting unblock. As you would have the full context of the block, could you possibly comment at User talk:72.200.71.7? Thanks. --Taelus (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded there. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Taelus (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Geremia
I'm bringing this here because you offered a last chance after his recent block for edit-warring and subsequent extensive block evasion. Since the block on his main account expired, he's used it to continue edit-warring on abortion-related articles. He's already over 1RR on abortion and mental health: If you'd prefer, I can just take this to the edit-warring noticeboard, but since you're familiar with the history and dealt with this user's block evasion, I thought I'd bring it here first. MastCell Talk 00:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Original edit: 17:27, 9 September 2011
 * First revert: 20:26, 9 September 2011
 * Second revert: 00:15, 10 September 2011
 * I'd rather not get involved on the editorial aspects of the issue, especially given that the topic area is currently ongoing an ArbCom case. I intervened because I wore my CU hat for the block evasion only.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I see another editor has already reported the violation at WP:AN3. Thanks for your help with the earlier sockpuppetry - much appreciated. MastCell Talk 04:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

alleged sockpuppet use
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hello Coren. Since you have commented in the Result section of this AE request, I'm letting you know that Jonchapple has made a concession that might affect the result. You could add your view if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't express an opinion on the substance of the matter; I haven't looked into the details and it's generally iffy for arbs to interfere in enforcement. My comment was on strictly a procedural point about what sanctions fall within a reasonable interpretation of an old remedy, not about how applicable it was to the case at hand.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Recidivism
Please contact me by e-mail to discuss this. Do you know this Marie Curie quote? One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done.

Yes, we plan for the future, but need to learn from experience as it unfolds. --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom case from which you recused yourself is drawing to a close. Is it timely to ask again for the opportunity to discuss this off-wiki? --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)