User talk:Courcelles/Archive 155

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150 Archive 153 Archive 154 Archive 155

Additional Slowking accounts

Hi, I wanted to get your advice on strategy approaching Slowking4 LTA. First, is there a strategy? Second, should I treat this like any other sockpuppet investigation? I keep finding accounts that are a bit on the stale side, but I'm nearly 100% sure are socks of the same master. One active 2020 through mid 2023, for instance, who has created 68 articles (one deleted) and two drafts (both deleted). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I basically treat it as any other SPI, The only real difference is we aren't that good at spotting some of them in real time. As to that abandoned account... ugh. It's so stale we would normally be fine ignoring it, but in this particular sockmaster's case and with that many creations it needs filing and those creations either examined or nuked. Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Followed up at SPI as you know. BTW I have created a tool that may help find some closer to real time. I can email details if interested. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Feel free, it would be interesting to at least take a look. Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Sent an email. The tool helped uncover the stuff listed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4/Archive#07 December 2023 and 09 December 2023. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look when I get home. Courcelles (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the find by another editor mentioned here, should I add it to the current SPI case? They have created 106 articles by my count. Only a handful have been deleted, but interestingly Veronica Madìa is one of them, created 2021-09-27 and if I'm doing this right, it had already been G5d on 2021-08-21 as a Slowking4 thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's mentioned in an SPI discussion like that, it will eventually get looked at when the case is processed. Courcelles (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-11

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly Summary #620

Notice

The article 1617 in Sweden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-Notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

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

  1. Azerbaijani art
  2. Azerbaijani dances
  3. Chess in Azerbaijan
  4. Aghdam Bread Museum
  5. Seyidli Mosque
  6. Javanshir clan

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

@Creffel SOrry to say I haven't even turned my laptop on since last Wednesday. done. Courcelles (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much Creffel (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
No problem. Courcelles (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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. —⁠Collint c 21:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
@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)
Noted. Thank you for your clarification. I guess I'll nominate another AfD soon. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Btw, thank you for taking the necessary steps to delete all pages created by SoilMineo39. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-12

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

Wikidata weekly Summary #621

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: [19] [20]

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" [21] [22]

2. It seems that there is a significant overlap in articles in which the users edit. This can be seen from here for example, [23]. They have 52 overlapping edit articles, of which 11 are talk pages.

3. The above can also be seen here [24] 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 [25] [26], 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 [27]. 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
IMO, Cordelia Hasanah and Asphonixm appear to be the same person. My reasoning are follows:
Initially, I was unaware of Cordelia Hasanah account until Ariandi Lie mentioned it. Upon further investigation, I observed that both accounts exhibit a strong interest in Indonesian biographies. Initially, their edits focused on old Indonesian actresses/celebrities, which didn't overtly indicate a connection between the socks. However, they later began editing articles about the Zakaria family, a non-notable family in Indonesia. While they may be notable in their local area (Bengkalis regency), they are certainly not notable nationwide, and IMO these edits are what strongly link those sock accounts.
Cordelia Hasanah and Asphonixm, along with their associated socks, have been active across en.wiki, id.wikip and Commons. While their edits on en.wiki may not initially appear connected, a closer examination of their contributions on Commons reveals strikingly similar editing behavior. This pattern becomes particularly evident when they make edits related to the Zakaria family. For instance:
  1. Take a look at the file uploaded by Asphonixm on Commons here, and observe how they filled out the "License" section.
  2. Now compare it to the "License" section of a file uploaded by Cordelia Hasanah here.
  3. Similarly, compare it to the "License" section of a file uploaded by Marissa Lavigna (confirmed by CU as a sock of Cordelia Hasanah on en.wiki) here.
  4. By examining these examples, we can identify similarities in their editing behavior.
  5. Moreover, if we delve into the edit history of Marissa Lavigna, we'll notice uploads of files related to the ancestors of the Zakaria family, such as 1, 2, and 3. IMO, this strongly suggests a connection between these accounts, much like what was emphasized in the SPI that I submitted before.
Kindly please revisit those accounts for further examination. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Meh, I see it's closed. Had a hard off-line weekend personally, had more to say there. Whatever. Courcelles (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-13

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #622

Tech News: 2024-14

MediaWiki message delivery 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

If you have time...

Hi, I don't usually push CUs to look at cases, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dinkar 108 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy murrey need to be sorted out, especially since Andy murrey has started disrupting the Dinkar 108 report, not to mention Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Hopefully, my notes at the Dinkar 108 report are helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You should also now look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince Of Roblox, although you are probably gone for the at least today.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks like Spicy is dealing with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please place this article on indefinite ECP? Looking through the history, this article gets persistent IP disruption, and was already placed on temporary ECP in the past. Grandmaster 18:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, it has already been done. Sorry for disturbing. Grandmaster 08:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Great. Today is the first time I've gotten online since last week. Courcelles (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. There is another edit warring IP: 2600:1700:8D49:1050:91BD:C733:8391:532D (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Looking through history, Balaban (instrument) gets a lot of sock activity. I think it makes sense to place it on ECP too. Could you please have a look? Thank you. Grandmaster 09:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

New legal article

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (April 10) and City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (April 11)

April 10: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option.

Among the topics, we'll be covering the newly-released drafts of the Movement Charter for Wikimedia global governance.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

April 11: City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon
New York City College of Technology

Additionally, you are invited to City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon at the New York City College of Technology Library in Downtown Brooklyn! Join us in person on April 11th to learn about these great new materials at City Tech Library; to learn about editing Wikipedia; and to help increase representation of LGBTQIA individuals and issues online. All are welcome, new and experienced!

Interested in attending, but not a CUNY student or faculty? Please get in touch; we'll help you navigate City Tech building security. Email Jen: jennifer.hoyer18 (at) citytech.cuny.edu.

  • Thursday, April 11 City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (RSVP on-wiki).
    12:30 pm – 3:30 pm (come by any time!)
    4:00 pm – 5:00 pm (reception to celebrate the library's LGBTQIA collection)
    City Tech Library Multimedia Screening and Meeting Space, 300 Jay Street, Brooklyn NY

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #623

Tech News: 2024-15

MediaWiki message delivery 23:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

A new @Arsi786's sock

Hi Courcelles. How do you do? I see you a while ago handling the sockpuppet case of Arsi786, which you confirmed [39]. Would you mind checking out this new sockupuppet case about him [40]? I have some evidence I can share with you, but for some reason, can I just send it via email? — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #622

Tech News: 2024-16

MediaWiki message delivery 23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)