User talk:Courcelles/Archive 148

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145 Archive 146 Archive 147 Archive 148 Archive 149 Archive 150 Archive 155

Wikidata weekly summary #559

Tech News: 2023-07

MediaWiki message delivery 01:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #560

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

Tech News: 2023-08

MediaWiki message delivery 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023

Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Mobile phone readers may only see the article "lead" – take some time to make it shine!
    Include something to keep people reading.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Just to continue the conversation about the lab leak at ITN, since it was closed

I think you're right, and I would've changed my vote to Oppose. It wasn't the US Government's position that there was a lab leak, and even so it didn't mean that it was deliberately engineered. I do think we should keep an eye on the story as it unfolds, though. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Oh, absolutely, I agree that if there was a definitive consensus this was a lab leak, that it would be ITN worthy (and front page news around the world!) Courcelles (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #561

Tech News: 2023-09

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central
The gathering is in the vicinity of Grand Central Terminal.

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community and visitors from the global Wikimedia Foundation for our WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central, in-person at Convene 101 Park Avenue in the vicinity of Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

This is somewhat of a sequel to last year's Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Brunch in terms of the participants, though this time it is an evening event in a different borough.

We may leaven the event with a few impromptu lightning talks, a Wiki-fashion show (yes, really!), and likely an afterparty tour.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.

5:30 pm - 7:00 pm
(Convene 101 Park Avenue, near Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal)

(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) 03:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
  • Germany FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
  • United States TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
  • Byzantine Empire Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included Berkelland LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, New England Trainsandotherthings, England Lee Vilenski, Indonesia Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, Washington (state) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and Chicago PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #562

Tech News: 2023-10

MediaWiki message delivery 23:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

This Month in GLAM: February 2023





Headlines
  • Albania report: I Edit Wikipedia Online Campaign 2023
  • Belgium report: Public Domain Day Belgium 2023
  • Brazil report: GLAM-Wiki initiatives in Brazil spark academic investigation
  • Croatia report: Activities during first two months of 2023
  • Indonesia report: Launching of Wikisource Loves Manuscripts; Bincang GLAM continues
  • Italy report: New project and collaboration in February
  • Kosovo report: I Edit Wikipedia Online Campaign 2023
  • New Zealand report: Wikidata and the Biodiversity Heritage Library, Wellington WikiCon 2023 and Auckland Museum local suburb project funding
  • Poland report: The European GLAM Coordinators online meet-up; GLAM-Wiki workshop at the Wawel Royal Castle State Art Collection; Wikimedians-in-residence online meet up
  • Sweden report: 100 000 Bildminnen; Report from The Association of Swedish Museums; Wikipedia for all of Sweden; ArkDes edit-a-thons
  • UK report: In Memoriam Jo Pugh / Cultural Diversity
  • USA report: Black History Month and More
  • Wiki Loves Living Heritage report: Wiki Loves Living Heritage launches 17 March 1pm UTC
  • WMF GLAM report: Gender, language, and living heritage events in collaboration with affiliates
  • Calendar: March's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Wikidata weekly summary #563

Tech News: 2023-11

MediaWiki message delivery 23:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 55

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

  • New bundle partners:
    • Newspapers.com
    • Fold3
  • 1Lib1Ref January report
  • Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #564

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

Tech News: 2023-12

MediaWiki message delivery 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, Courcelles. It is nice to seeing your name around the project -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Likewise... man, we do go way back! Jusdafax (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Nice to see everyone again. Just doing some basic stuff as I catch up on everything... this place changes constantly! Courcelles (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Not me, I'm the same! Just older. Very nice to have you back, my friend.-- Ponyobons mots 18:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
        I do so miss our chats from years ago. Glad to see you're still here! Courcelles (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Happy to see your datestamp. BusterD (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Study of Hadith with Muhammad Ismail

Hi, thanks for dealing with this. Maybe you would consider extending the block to TPA? Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Sanction:karagory

1) Administrator Courcelles, I respectfully request that my arbitration enforcement sanction be removed. In return, I promise not to make any edits about Peter Navarro anywhere in Wikipedia, ever. I don't know what else I can do to show good faith.

2) Can you answer for me what a typical/normal time period would be to archive something? I really don't know. I wasn't trying to be funny when I asked for reference. The editors I have dealt with on this article have not been all that helpful to me; other article editors have been very helpful and friendly. I really wanted, and still want to know the Wikipedia way of archiving. Thanks. Karagory (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I’d be willing to let the restriction go in a few months if you go do useful edits elsewhere, but for now, I think the mandatory break from Navarro. And for most articles, 3 months is a perfectly reasonable archive time given a desire to only keep discussions up that still have active interest to be continued, archiving bots run by the most recent time stamp, not the oldest, so even a quick note that you want to keep talking about an issue would reset the clock. Courcelles (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I would certainly agree to that restriction. I will not edit the Navarro article even after the restriction as a show of good faith. Thank you for your explanation. All I was looking for was little assistance instead of: NO, that it was way it is because I said so; that is not the Wikipedia way. I know you put up with a lot of grief as an Administrator, but I appreciate you making Wikipedia better. Thanks Karagory (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Why delete and redirect? Why not simply redirect? I saw no assertion the comment was defamatory, COPYVIO, attack/harassment, tainted by socks, or any other reason that we would want to deny regular editors the history from which to source and improve a potential future article on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Undetected the history. Courcelles (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. There's a 99% chance that no one ever will... but I think it sends the right message to allow for the possibility. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I see something imploded at ANI

I reported a user at ANI before going to bed and woke up to find the entire thread had been memory holed. Out of morbid curiosity… what happened, without going into detail (obviously)? Dronebogus (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit. The user was blocked. Courcelles (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ANEW bot

The bot does not require anything in particular for a section to be archived except that it's over 48h old.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, I think I might have had the RFPP bot on the brain... Courcelles (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Help

No I agree and your right It is biased, can you help me wipe the matter of all personal details and Im happy to voluntarily delete, i'm not the right person to be making submissions as I am unbiased. Jadamondo (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #565

Tech News: 2023-13

MediaWiki message delivery 01:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Roxy the Dog

Given that WP:GENSEX is a Contentious Topic, and in light of this AE thread and their lenthy block log, don't you think a one-week regular admin action block may be insufficient? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I do, but I am a teacher, and my 2nd block went into chaos mode as I was working on ensuring all the alerts had been done! I'm about to do more now. Courcelles (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Maddy from Celeste:, now finished what I was trying to do before class went to noisy mode! Courcelles (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Not to be too demanding but there seems to be a minor formatting mishap: You have been sanctioned Edit warring. The usage notes at wikt:transgendered may also be of interest for the future. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, modified. Courcelles (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. In the last two days, I've declined protecting this page twice at WP:RFPP/I as preemptive ( {{rfpp|np}} ) since I didn't see much if any disruption to warrant doing so. Now I've noticed you having done so (logged by Ymblanter for some reason), so I'm wandering how that came about; if there was admin shopping, etc. Thanks for taking the time. El_C 08:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Um, why would you decline it? Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War is a blanket authorization for such protections, and we’ve never waited for disruption to spread from page to page when the 500/30 is authorized for the topic area and the page is so firmly within the topic that there are no edits a non extended confirmed editor could make without violating the sanctions. (Note the complete shield from edit warring granted by the community to editors who revert non-EC editors within the topic area). As a new article under such a sanctions regime, it should have been protected immediately to enforce the sanctions, and I’m really surprised you’d decline it twice. And, no, there was no admin shopping, I left a note directly on RFPP saying I was protecting the page. Courcelles (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
That is in fact not so. There has been a longstanding practice among admins, which I believe started with WP:ARBPIA3, to not preemptively protect pages even under such blanket restrictions. Only when disruption actually occurs do these normally come into effect. El_C 10:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I was on arbcom during ARBPIA3, and was part of the discussions that led to that novel remedy being introduced, refined, and voted on, so suffice it to say we remember history and the intent of the regulation differently. In fact, the committee voted down the interpretation that it was a discretionary action to be used in response to disruption. Courcelles (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it was WP:ARBPIA4, then...? Anyway, there was a time period during 2017 (or 2018? or 2019?) when someone was requesting for a lot of ARBPIA pages to be protected preemptively by the tens (10 here, 20 there, etc.), which I did. I think I got to like 100 of em until there were objections to that blanket protection of pages that had zero disruptive edits. As I recall, we asked ArbCom and they said something to the effect of 'do whatever.'
A conversation then ensued at RfPP by several of its most active admins (I think Ymblanter participated, I definitely remember Lectonar did), which then resulted in a unanimous agreement to stop preemptively protecting those (well, unanimous except for me, I was neutral, I still am). And that has been the prevailing practice ever since. We both have protected a lot of pages, you +1K, me +10K, and are likely to continue doing so, so it'd be good if we could arrive at a consistent approach for these requests. El_C 13:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd be ready to consider flooding RFPP with requests with no current disruption to be de facto disruption of the process, as basically [[pointy. But extending a sanction to a newly created article, I don't see a problem with getting in front of all the of the utter garbage edits that comes from this conflict, especially with that one being linked on the main page currently. (I guess my opinion on this is "if someone bothers to ask without flooding the process, I'll push the buttons to enforce the sanctions. No one else has to, and no one should flood RFPP without active disruption, but I read the 300/50 General Sanction as saying the default setting of these pages should be ECP.) Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I will quote from our protection policy:"Administrators are authorized to enforce this restriction through extended confirmed protection or any other means". So I still read the meaning as a may, not a must, even in ARBPIA cases. And I for one, having been around for a long time and being old-fashioned anyway, still like to see at least some kind of disruption before protecting a page. Protection still should be the exception, not the rule. Protection is such a crude tool, when blocks or partial blocks would suffice. As an addendum, I definitely know of at least 2 admins working at rfp who simply don't process ecp-protection requests anymore. If we really want all articles in contentious areas protected preemptively, then let's codify this unambiguously in some way. Lectonar (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, to the best of my recollection, many of these were not necessarily benign ARBPIA pages, but rather, ones with a moderate to high potential for disruption—and now that Israel's far-right government seems intent to rescind the Gaza disengagement law, for example, I expect to see many of them needing to be 'legit' protected. The matter also arose of the two different types of preemptive protection requests: ones which had zero edits by unconfirmed accounts whatsoever -versus- those ones that did have edits by unconfirmed accounts but which were nevertheless uncontroversial (i.e. edits that otherwise would fall under WP:SILENCE)—not an easy feat for ARBPIA, but still, believe or not, there are in fact many such edits that neither side contest.
In any case, I personally have greatly decreased preemptive protections of any kind, save for the most potentially egregious cases. So for example, I believe I preemptively protected zero pages in 2022 and only one in 2021 (Jill Biden from none to indef semi as WP:AP2 upon Joe Biden assuming the presidency). Anyway, perhaps it's time to attempt to incorporate how to approach 500/30 mandates in the protection policy, especially since these are no longer limited to ARBPIA, but now also extend to other sanction regimes, such as the aforementioned WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:APL50030, and possibly even more that I'm not immediately able to recall. El_C 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

So for example, you indef ECP'd the protection request for the List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces under RUSUKR (diff), which I haven't looked at and may well be due due to accompanying moderate levels of RUSUKR-related disruption. But if not, contrast that with my declining the request by the same submitter for T-54/T-55 (diff), which I did not immediately see as having accompanying moderate levels of RUSUKR-related disruption—note that the #Russo-Ukrainian War section accounts for a tiny portion of the total text in the T-45/T-55 article. The point is that there's a growing risk that the submitter is getting mixed signals from the two of us. El_C 20:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and the article about the tanks is really a Cold War article that extends into today by a small margin. That’s not something I’d protect under general sanctions, since there’s plenty of edits that can be made without coming anywhere near the current war. The list is different, though, the lede says it’s for current equipment used by a belligerent party in the current war, not for a complete historical list, or even, say, one since the establishment of the Russian Federation.
The core problem? We likely have two different interpretations of the sanctions regime, and no easy way to reconcile them. I read the sanctions as saying new editors may not touch the topic, and anyone can revert for any reason without worrying about edit warring. If that’s going to happen? Why let them waste time making the edit? If an admin wanted to go through whole categories and apply ECP, I think the sanctions authorized would support that action, (though it’s absolutely not something I want to spend my time doing evaluating hundreds of articles for how fully they are connected to topics new editors can’t touch.)
aAs to it being a may, not a must? Yeah, because we want humans to determine how much of the article would be unaffected by the sanctioned topic, and we can’t lay down commands on how human volunteers spend a limited resource we have — time of humans with a sysop flag. Courcelles (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In a way I think we are on the same side, but with different conclusions; I am well aware that I would not need to fear repercussions either as an editor if I just reverted an edit in articles which fall under the sanctions, and also not as an admin if I ecp-protected articles which are in the same category. But I think assuming good faith with editors even here is not a waste of resources: once they have made a disruptive edit, then sanctions can be applied. It would be perhaps be a good move to bring this discussion and its underlying points of contention up somewhere. Lectonar (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    I would never sanction the editor for making an edit unless it was, of course, a de facto disruptive edit or an edit warring issue. Folks don't know, after all. That's kind of why I like protecting, it saves newer editors the stress of making an edit and seeing it reverted for no reason they can easily understand other than it being made by the wrong person. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, that's good, I'm glad to learn that this latest example, at least, isn't a pressing issue. But the concern remains about ones that may still arise, and not just with you and me—I won't get into the nuances of #related content -versus- #primary articles for the time being.
But I'd stress that I am not necessarily in disagreement with your position. I still don't know if it's overall better or worse. When I said that "I was neutral, I still am," I truly meant it. After +10K protections and as one of the most active contributing admins, possibly the mostest, in both WP:RfPP and WP:AEL protections, I find that often the more I learn, the less I know.
My stance therefore only follows that aforementioned discussion, that is now likely over half a decade old, which as mentioned had unanimous agreement, and which from then on became the prevailing practice. Which is why I suggested something be codified once and for all, one way or the other, at protection policy. Which I realize is easier said than done, but I really can't think of anything else. But I'm definitely open to creative ideas! El_C 23:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #566

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Apr 12 WikiWednesday + Earth Week (Apr 15-23)

April 12: WikiWednesday @ BPL + on Zoom
WikiWednesday is back in-person, pizza included!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.

5:30 pm -6:30 pm (Open Hour)
6:30 pm - 8:00 pm (Wiki Salon)
(Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn)
Also online via Zoom starting at ~6:30 pm
April 15-23: Earth Week!

Please RSVP on-wiki to any of the Earth Day/Week activities you will be joining, all are open:

When: Saturday, April 15, 11pm - 3pm
Where: Howland Public Library, 313 Main Street, Beacon NY
When: Wednesday, April 19, 2pm-5pm
Where: LaGuardia CC - Room MB10B, 31-10 Thomson Avenue, Queens, NY 11101
When: Saturday April 22, 11am-2pm
Where: Spectrum Learning Lab - DeKalb branch Brooklyn Public Library and Sure We Can & Hybrid
When: Sunday, April 23, 12-5pm
Where: Concert Grove Pavilion, Prospect Park

(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) 14:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-14

MediaWiki message delivery 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

Inquiry

Hello Courcelles, Back in 2011, you full protected the user talk page of User talk:KnowIG due to the user's actions. I see that their two archives were not protected, and did not experience any vandalism or issues in the years since. Do you have any objections to lowering the protection of User talk:KnowIG to extended confirmed (or lower) so that I could address the Tidy Font errors (a high priority WP:lint issue) in the signatures appearing on that page? Zinnober9 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Done. Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for your assistance, issues addressed, page is clean. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
    Anytime, though I won't pretend to be technical enough to understand what these lint errors are, I'm willing to trust fixing them is useful! Courcelles (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. As I can see, you deleted this article due to a number of reasons. But somebody recreated it as Somkhishvili Tamaz with simple recombinated name and same text and sources. As I understand, this recreation violates wikipedia policy? Should this article be removed as well? Caramoble (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be right, might be wrong, but rather than pull another deletion rabbit out of my hat, I'm going to list it AFD. Courcelles (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

AE alteration needed

On the AE for me, HJ Mitchell made a comment "...Please refrain from making substantive edits to your comments once posted, and especially once replied to...." I contacted them and they had not actually seen me do that. They were just irritated that I had not made a comment all at once, but had added and revised it in several edits, but there were no intervening comments by anyone. Right now that stands as an accusation that readers will forever assume is a true accusation. I'd like that comment removed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I've got no grounds to remove another admin's comment from an AE. The only one that can make a decision like this properly would be @HJ Mitchell: himself. Courcelles (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Hello I wanted to ask for your help, there is an admin he is misusing his privileges in a page for the city i was born. He is reverting my edits and blocking me for a period of time. The name of the page is "Podujevo" it is not the correct name and as well he is using his phone and created a 2nd account to make it look like i am (edit) warring and then comes with his main account and blocks me. What can i do ? Fa7bardh (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Likely you’d need to go to WP:ANI, I don’t look at WP much on the weekends. Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You protected this page in June 2012 following an oversight action. Do you believe that continued protection of the talk page is warranted? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

That was a pretty serious long term abuse. Can’t see any reason to unprotect this, even after a decade. Courcelles (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User you blocked

Hi, Courcelles. POLNET55 isn't exactly an asset to Wikipedia, but my warning to them was quite recent, and they haven't edited since. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC).

Came there off an AIV report and I belatedly noticed that. My brain saw your block, and your warning, and just didn’t connect they had completely different timestamps… oops. Still, two harassment blocks in 70 edits tells me this is an editor we’re better off without. Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC).

Tech News: 2023-15

MediaWiki message delivery 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2023





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Wikidata weekly summary #567

Wikidata weekly summary #568

Tech News: 2023-16

MediaWiki message delivery 01:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at a noticeboard

See Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Review of concerning block. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Your block of 2620:9:6000:5800:cd16:ff13:a610:c63c

Just letting you know about the insult on their User Talk page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Special:Contributions/2620:9:6000:5800:0:0:0:0/64 /64 reblocked] without talk page privileges. Courcelles (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sat: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + Sun: Wiki-Picnic

April 22: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + April 23: Wiki-Picnic
Join us for two final Earth Week events!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a pair of special events this weekend as we wrap up Earth Week! No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome.

What: Improve Wikipedia articles on the Environment of Brooklyn!
When: Saturday April 22, 11am-1pm (BPL), 1pm-5:30pm (SWC)
Where: Spectrum Learning Lab - DeKalb branch Brooklyn Public Library and Sure We Can & Hybrid
What: Enjoy a picnic celebration and Wiki-Seder!
When: Sunday, April 23, 12-5pm
Where: Concert Grove Pavilion, Prospect Park

(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) 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Barnett effect ECP?

Hi Courcelles, hope all is well. Idly curious what I missed here with Barnett effect - I lifted a ten-year semi-protection which was a response to basic vandalism, but I think you have flagged as needing ECP? All the best, -- Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I was dealing with the linty old socks request above it and the script screwed up…. My protection log will show I didn’t actually touch that page.  ;) Courcelles (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
yeah I noticed that too. :) Curiosity was really if the old vandalism was linked to some sort of current LTA of which I was unaware. Glad it's not, and good luck with Linty's socks!-- Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I confess I don’t understand the lint thing, but Zinnober9 does, and we generate database reports for it, so it can’t hurt to fix. Not like sock puppet pages from 18 years ago actually need indef full protection… While I have your attention, what do you think about the deceased user pages? I know full is standard procedure, but ECP really seems like enough for those userpages of folks who didn’t attract much negative attention. Courcelles (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, per application of the least possible protection to prevent disruption. Can't imagine why people would need to edit them but whatever. There's a couple I can think of that would be vandal targets and need to stay as they are, but this could easily be case by case. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Per your comment [[User:|Euryalus]] about negative attention - SlimVirgin (who I miss every day) received both negative and positive attention and I can well imagine someone gaming the system to get ECP and then messing with her page. If you are okay with leaving it at ECP I just hope that you will both have her page on your watchlist to rvt if anything should happen. Thanks for your time and I hope you both have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Oops messed up my ping Euryalus. Apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
SV is the one I absolutely will not be leaving at ECP… Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Yep agree with that. Also Kevin Gorman. And @MarnetteD: you have a great weekend too. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

RPPD information

Hello, I have a question about two types of pages I'm considering asking for a protection reduction on, and since you've handled some of my recent requests, felt you were a good person to ask. This is not a formal request, only information gathering, I'd make the formal request at RPPD if these are acceptable and noncontroversial sorts of requests.

For user pages/subpages of deceased Wikipedians that have been full protected, are these valid for temporary page protection reductions to address lint errors?

My other question is for user pages of long blocked, long dormant, socks (ten+ years with no known activity). In general, should these remain at full protection indefinitely, or is a reduction acceptable for addressing the lint acceptable, either reduced temporarily or indefinite?

In each case I'm eying about 11 pages, so not a large quantity in either case. I'd make two separate requests if these are valid due to their nature.

Thank you for your insight, Zinnober9 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  • For both of those categories, assuming they aren't recent protections, I'd likely be willing to drop them to extended confirmed (subject to changing my mind when I see the actual pages, of course.) Full protection in this kind of situation is a bit of a hack from before EC was available, and while it stopped nonsense, it cut off uncontroversial maintenance of the sort you are doing. Courcelles (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    Of course. I was just seeking the general impression of these sorts of requests. For the sock pages, most recent protection was 2006, so those probably will be fine. I'll formally post that request at RPPD in a minute.
    For the deceased, I was looking at these eleven pages:
    2022 (1): Levent
    2021 (5): Aditya Kabir/Page content, Patrick Rogel, JGHowes, SlimVirgin
    2020 (3): Aditya Kabir, Ron/admin, Ron/Toolbox
    earlier (3): Bhadani (2018), Sanko (2012), Ron/Editnotice (2011)
    If any are too recent to make a request for, that's perfectly fine.
    Zinnober9 (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
    I’ll drop all these to EC momentarily, but let me know when you are done, so I can revert myself? Courcelles (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
    Don’t feel like you have to rush, given I don’t speak HTML I’m not sure how involved fixing this is on each page. But, yeah, at least some of these I will be going back to full when you’re done. Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
    I should have these all done in next 24hrs, but yes, I will message you when I've completed them all. Thank you for your assistance! Zinnober9 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Courcelles All complete with these pages, you may protect them back up. Thank you for your help! I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't spot that the issues on Aditya Kabir and Ron/admin were transcribed from other pages, so ended up not needing to change anything on these two after all, but all others went as expected. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
    No worries. I’ve moved SlimVirgin’s user page back to full, but the others I am somewhat inclined to see full as overkill. Courcelles (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #569