User talk:Courcelles

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Possibility of EC Protection?

Greetings, thank you for helping with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Əzərbəyəniləri sock investigations.

You placed EC protection for several Azerbaijan-Armenia articles in which confirmed and suspected socks were active. Would you be open to consider adding such templates to more articles where these IP accounts were active? I had these in mind

Please consider when you have the time. - Creffel (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Creffel SOrry to say I haven't even turned my laptop on since last Wednesday. done. Courcelles (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Creffel (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Courcelles (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block Evasion

Hey Courcelles,

Just wanted to drop a quick thank you for your work on SPI. Blocking Special:Contributions/Barstain and the other socks was a solid move. However, could you revisit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm? There's a new account named Zorro Fairbanks showing similar patterns to the blocked sock. While focusing on Indonesian biographies, they've also been editing the Zakaria family, who aren't notable figures in Indonesia. They might have local significance, but not at a national level. IMO, that edit is a clear indication of possible sock. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handled. Thanks for the heads-up. Courcelles (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion request

Hi Courcelles, I picked you at random as an admin willing to help with revision deletion. I believe this already-reverted edit qualifies under RD2. Thanks for your help. —⁠Collin^{t c} 21:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hello Courcelles,

I'm reaching out for your assistance once again. Initially, I nominated AfD for the deletion of Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria and Siti Zainab on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah binti Ahmad. However, it appears that both pages have previously undergone AfD discussions (here and here), resulting in a "Soft Delete" outcome. Despite this, the articles remain on Wikipedia. It's been over six months since the AfD results, but the articles persist. These articles were created by a sock mentioned in a previous section before their block, and this individual has a history of creating articles about non-notable figures.

Would you be able to proceed with deleting these articles, or should I initiate a new AfD for them? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pages created by SoilMineo39 are all G5 candidates. The ones by the master have to go through AFD, sorry. Courcelles (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd like to clarify, do I have to initiate another AfD process despite the previous discussions resulting in deletion? Ckfasdf (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf, yes. A soft delete is just that, so that the page exists means you need a fresh AFD. Courcelles (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you for your clarification. I guess I'll nominate another AfD soon. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, thank you for taking the necessary steps to delete all pages created by SoilMineo39. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

Greetings,

I simply wanted to ask for your opinion about a suspicion I have. I am considering filing a SPI case for two users, KhndzorUtogh and Vanezi Astghik. I wanted to ask if you think there is enough material here for SPI report or not.

My suspicion rests on the following:

1. Both users tend to revert the edits by frequently citing the "lack of Extended-confirmed" status in topics relating to Armenia-Azerbaijan, even in the most dubious cases where neither politics or ethnically charged topics are not involved. Too many examples to cite, but consider these for examples: [1] [2]

In the first example, the topic is a Georgian-Armenian yogurt dish, which I think hardly falls under the Armenia-Azerbaijan umbrella. In the second example is a Turkish-Armenian writer and lexicographer, which again, has hardly anything to do with Azerbaijan. Many more examples are to be found in the edit histories, can be found just by pressing ctrl+g and searching up "extended confirmed" [3] [4]

2. It seems that there is a significant overlap in articles in which the users edit. This can be seen from here for example, [5]. They have 52 overlapping edit articles, of which 11 are talk pages.

3. The above can also be seen here [6] where it seems there is a significant overlap in editing articles between the two users.

4. Both users move pages from one name to another a lot. When opening their edit histories [7] [8], just by pressing ctrl+g on windows and then searching for "requested move" or "moved", one can see that a significant portion of the past 500 edits of each user has been concerned with either moving pages, or requesting a move for pages.

5. Users appear to have alternating spikes in editing activity, with editing activity "hopping" between the two accounts. When one account is highly active, the other account tends to be passive, and vice-versa. Consider this interaction timeline for example between the two users [9]. One account edits intensively, then goes into hibernation, and another account starts editing actively.

What do you personally think? Should I file SPI with these points? any opinion or thoughts are highly appreciated.

- Creffel (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely suspicious based on those points, so, yeah, and SPI could be warranted, particularly if you can find anything where they use similar linguistic quirks? Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems there are plenty of similarities in their edit descriptions. I put together the major ones I found in the SPI case I just filed here for KhndzorUtogh and Vanezi. -- Creffel (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet and I'm not familiar with either KhndzorUtogh or Creffel. Don't have much else to say on this. Vanezi (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry versus two folks having similar interests can be tricky to distinguish. Because of this conversation, I’m going to let that SPI be handled by another CU. Courcelles (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request opinion

Hello,

Could you check about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cordelia Hasanah ? I feel there is same user behaviour. I wrote this request too on Sockpuppet investigations Asphonixm comment. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 18:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cordelia Hasanah farm is very much stale for checkuser purposes. Trying to connect them at this point is really going to be a matter of speculation and making the behaviour case clear, if someone finds it worth the time to actually do that. Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

The notice "Language links are at the top of the page" that appears in the Vector 2022 skin main menu has been removed now that users have learned the new location of the Language switcher. [10]
IP info feature displays data from Spur, an IP addresses database. Previously, the only data source for this feature was MaxMind. Now, IP info is more useful for patrollers. [11]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. [12][13][14]
Communities can now customize the default reasons for undeleting a page by creating MediaWiki:Undelete-comment-dropdown. [15]

Problems

RevisionSlider is an interface to interactively browse a page's history. Users in right-to-left languages reported RevisionSlider reacting wrong to mouse clicks. This should be fixed now. [16]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar). [17][18]
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. [19][20]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction on Talk: Elissa Slotkin

Can you please elaborate on the decision to ECP-lock the discussion page for a year? As I understand, locking talk pages in *any* capacity is extremely rare. I've never heard of one being ECP'd before, especially without justification on the page itself.

I would like this to also be considered a formal appeal, but I don't know that I can argue against a position that has yet to be justified. andrew.robbins (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to speak for Courcelles, but that page is covered twice-over by the contentious topics procedure, first because it falls under modern American politics, and second because it is a BLP article. The contentious topics procedures applies to "applies to edits and pages in all namespaces" related to the topic, broadly construed -- meaning it applies to the article talk page as well; and it authorizes a single uninvolved administrator to impose several standard restrictions (including any degree of page protection) at their discretion. It does not require justification beyond the administrator's belief that the protection is "necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." That authority is explicitly delegated by the Arbitration Committee, and overrides the standard policies around page protection. I hope that makes the explanation a bit more clear. If you wanted to appeal it, the process to do so is outlined here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I want to know is how ECPing a talk page for a year is either necessary or at all proportionate when the only issue at play is alleged meatpuppetry. I was going to wait for a response before appealing, but if its not considered bad etiquette to do so now I very well may. andrew.robbins (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I don’t get on here every day these days. But ECP keeps the meatpuppets away, and facilitates good quality discussion without distraction. It’s a pretty mild action that generally reduces nonsense significantly. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATPROT disagrees. Regardless, there are only allegations of meatpuppetry here. Just nuke it after the fact if its not otherwise disruptive. I appreciate the response and will continue this on the appeal thread. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTOP overrules ATPROT, though. It’s an extraordinary grant of ArbCom’s authority in areas that have historically proven to be excessive sources of disruption. Courcelles (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it overrules the necessary/proportionate qualifier, but that isn't for me to decide. Again, lets try to keep it in one place on the appeal thread. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of appeal from arbitration enforcement action

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that an appeal from an arbitration enforcement action you took has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thank you. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]