User talk:Courcelles/Archive 22

Alice (Transformers)
Can you please userify the page Alice (Transformers) to my user page? Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, the article is under the redirect at User:Mathewignash/Alice (Transformers). Courcelles 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RfD
Per this, is it worth restoring the redirects already deleted (and mentioned in linked RfD) which were deleted without the full story. I just wasn't sure how this felt procedurally so haven't done it myself. Thought I'd check first.  Rambo's Revenge   (talk)   11:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say they should be restored, as once it was explained fully what was going on, the consensus devolved pretty much one-sidedly. Courcelles 11:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅,  Rambo's Revenge   (talk)   13:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PPI Assessment Follow-up
Hi Courcelles, recently you signed up to help with assessment on Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. It's a lot to digest, and totally understandable if it's not what signed up for. However, there are also some exciting perks to this project: 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating, and 5) other interesting benefits you will find with participation.

The first group of articles requesting your assessment has been posted. I was hoping to do a preliminary comparison of the data on 8 October 2010. The second assessment request, which is part of the same comparison, will go out about the same time. To help with organization, if you haven't posted any assessment scores on your assessment page by 8 October 2010, I will delete your assessment request and you will not receive further requests. I hope the unusualness of this assessment research does not discourage your participation; if you are not interested working in the research I hope you will continue to assess articles within the project. If possible let me know on my talk page if you don't wish to be a part of the research, or perhaps if there was some confusion or bad communication; what the public policy team, and I, in particular, can do to make it more positive for volunteers. Remember, I am new to Wikipedia and trying to learn the best way to research this project, to hopefully integrate the amazing resource that is Wikipedia onto more university campuses and classrooms. Thanks, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language
Hello I noticed that you have seemed to applied a restriction to the page concerning this topic. However, after I looked at the case page, I believe your sanctions may not be authorized by the Macedonia case decision.

Text of decision:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. Fei noh a Talk, My master 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See the Digwuren case, where under the same language, article-level sanctions have been accepted in the past. If you think this is beyond my powers, feel free to appeal it at WP:AE. Also, note that the article was warned on 7 September by WGFinley. Courcelles 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ghazal Omid
I've nominated the article for deletion, since I could not find any more references. Perhaps these will be my last edits, since I potentially opened up another shitpile for mining by inclusionists and deletionists, liberals and conservatives, etc., and might die in the process. If so, it's been nice knowing ya! Drmies (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this will be interesting. I'll monitor the situation, though I have to admit I hit the protect button without really considering the basic question of notability. Courcelles 03:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What few sources there are (and I don't think they're all reliable) suggest that she was first an anti-Iranian hailed by conservatives and denounced as a stooge by liberals, and then hated by conservatives also because she appears to be in some YouTube video praising Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... Perhaps she is an equal-opportunity offender; if she's kept I might take her as a role model. But those reports are all on blogs. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Charlie Crist
Could you explain why semiprotection of Charlie Crist was necessary, please? --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted the worst of it, but the recent history is nothing but BLP violations. Blatant ones.  Something that's not going to get any better as we approach the election of 9 November. Courcelles 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It looked like there was a temporal gap between between the recent vandalism by a single IP and previous vandalism, which might indicate that vandalism isn't so frequent. It would be unfortunate to restrict anonymous editing at such a relevant time for the article over the actions of a single IP user. Why not unprotect and monitor to see if vandalism by another anonymous user occurs? --Bsherr (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, because I just had to expunge libel and gross vandalism from the history? Because this type of thing is totally unacceptable in a BLP, much less one the world will be watching over the next four weeks.  Admins have broad discretion from ArbCom to use the protection tool to prevent more BLP messes, both in harm to the subject, and harm to the project.  IP's are actively harming this article.  They are very unlikely to instead want to come in and rewrite it into compliance with standards. Courcelles 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA
I saw your comment at UAA about "Gigabytes of block logs" - just wanted to let you know it's a returning vandal, unfortunately. TN  X   Man  20:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why you're the checkuser and the rest of us are chasing our tails ;) Courcelles 20:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language
When you protected Croatian language, you froze the page at a version following an edit by one of the editors who was edit warring. The last edit by User:Sokac121 should be rolled back. Five different editors (Kwamikagami, Taivo, JorisvS, Keristrasza, and JamesBWatson) were trying to protect this article from the edits of User:Jack Sparrow 3 (whom you blocked) and User:Sokac121 (who had violated WP:3RR). Thank you for protecting the article, but the last edit needs to be reverted. --Taivo (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not done handling this problem. (Not that anyone is going to be happy when I am, but, give me a few minutes.) Courcelles 11:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for trying to rush you. --Taivo (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, please do not revert last edit, because this article is already burdened too much with Kwamikagami's non-referenced original research. Thanks. --Roberta F. (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done. I'm not going to revert, but the article is open for editing again.  I'm sure this isn't going to please anyone, but... well, look though my contribs of the last 30 minutes if you want to see what I've done. Courcelles 12:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And, Tavio, you weren't rushing me, I just had about twenty tabs open and was reading far too many things at that exact moment. Courcelles 12:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Courcelles. AFAI see, you're not speaking Croatian. Neither Taivo. But Taivo dares to declare himself, Kwamikagami, JorisvS, Keristrasza, and JamesBWatson (non of them studied Croatian, Croatian language is not their mother tongue) as "protectors", and on the other hand, he declares Jack Sparrow 3 (you blocked him) and user Sokac121 as some kind of vandals. Taivo's message to you is the typical example of personal POV. Jack Sparrow 3 and Sokac, and all other Croat users that participated on that article and on the talkpage of that article have studied Croatian and we speak it as mother tongue, in our everyday speech. I disagree. There's English-speaking world out of USA and British Commonwealth. There's a good reason why many non-English scientific works have summary in English, or why many non-English-speaking countries have scientific magazines written in English. If en.wiki is going to ignore that, if it intends to ignore the scientific approaches from the non-English-speaking world (remember that "brain drain" goes from Eastern Europe to the West, not the other way around), if it intends to stubbornly defend the scientific fallacies from 19th century and to selfsatisfiedly close itself in its dome of glass, it'll lose any credit. It'll fell like those financial pyramids. Current "successes" of Wikipedia are fooling the people that don't want to open their eyes. Don't tolerate small East Central and South East European nations as some goulash nations. Coldy citing some obsolete data from some Encyclopedia in English, that coldly states something, without going any deeper in the matter, is not scientific approach. Taivo's message sounds almost equally as Yugounitarist official ideology of Kingdom of Yugoslavia (back in 1920's), that spoke about "3 tribes (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes), 1 (Yugoslav) nation". Take a look again. Taivo, JorisvS, Keristrasza, JamesBWatson were solely doing "reverted edit, undid edit". Actually, they never wrote anything. They appeared "out of nowhere" there so someone else can evade WP:3RR. Therefore, Sokac121 and Jack Sparrow were trapped into that game. ARBMAC sanction was imposed to them; too quickly. Who decided about that? Which Committee was discussing their behaviour? Finally, about Taivo, JorisvS, Keristrasza (active from Jul 30, 2009 1.432 edits: I see a lot of them are reverts, adding templates, General notes, rarely writing of content ), JamesBWatson's appearance on that article. Remember  Template:Uw-3rr  "...users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule . When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors". Kwamikagami's behaviour is a special case. If nothing less, please, remove the ARBMAC sanction imposed to Sokac121 and Jack Sparrow (they've already been sanctioned for 3RR), or expand the sanction to Taivo (3RR in 27h (2RR in 30 minutes!), 13:02 , 13:32 4 Oct-16:11 5 Oct ),  JorisvS (3RR in less than 24h  , 14:40 3 Oct , 16:44 3 Oct , 12:15 4 Oct ), Keristrasza (2RR in 28 minutes 12:56 and 13:24, 4 Oct and ) and JamesBWatson (he mostly reverts , see 1-5 Oct and inserts notices, no explanation for his revert on the talkpage!) (all Template:Uw-3rr ). Obvious evasion of 3RR rule. I prefere first solution, removing the ARBMAC sanction from Sokac121 and Jack Sparrow 3, since the sanction is too rigorous for this case, and I want to give the chance to Taivo, Keristrasza, JorisvS and JamesBWatson. Thank You for Your patience for reading this long message. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Protected page
Hi. I see you protected "Talk:Libertarianism". If all that was provoked for just one IP that was vandalizing that page, wouldn't be more correct to block the IP?” TeLe Ş ( PT @ L C G ) 06:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP is dynamic - it is blocked, but the user could shift IP addresses very quickly. Best thing in these circumstances is a short period of semi-protection. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see... if it is a case of sock puppetry the protection is explained, but I don't see any reason for not blocking that IP. Even if it was not a SP. Just my opinion. Thanks for your attention.” TeLe Ş ( PT @ L C G ) 06:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking highly dynamic IP's is worse than useless. By the time you get around to blocking them, the person using them has long since moved on, and all you'll do is hit innocent users. Courcelles 07:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would explain why you have to block it for a short period, but don't explain why you wouldn't block it at all. Are you saying that you didn't block it only because it is dynamic? So we don't block dynamic IP anymore? I'm sorry to insist, but I'm not agreed. If you are correct the IP should not be blocked at this moment.” TeLe Ş ( PT @ L C G ) 07:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course policy would let me block it. I've also dealt with enough dynamic IP's to know it is much like a game of "Whack-a-mole" where the admins have a trump card; the range block. (Not to mention, this is no longer my protection.  I couldn't unprotect now even if I wanted to, WP:WHEEL.) Courcelles 09:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact I actually did block the IP earlier (for a couple of days) - but only because it was a sock of a indef blocked user. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism
Whoops, didn't mean to overwrite your protection there, no harm done though. I've blocked the IP anyway, it's a sock of User:BlueRobe. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, it happens. Happens quite a bit, actually.  Who designed it that we get block conflicts but not protection conflicts, anyway? Courcelles 09:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we do - the protection log shows an expiry date. I got my dates confused though, and thought the protection expired today - so I thought I was extending it for a day. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If we do, that has changed in the last 36 hours. I've "extended" protections by a single minute when I spent too long typing into the protection screen, and the system will just take it.  Not a big deal with we're on the same page, though it does make the logs a mess. Courcelles 09:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)