Meta:Requests for oversight/Courcelles

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Courcelles[edit]

Courcelles (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Ending 24 October 2011‎ 05:40 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to nominate Courcelles for Oversight. Courcelles is a meta administrator with approximately 1,190 edits. He is already identified with the foundation and holds both Checkuser and Oversight rights on the English Wikipedia. In addition he serves on the Arbitration Committee's Audit Subcommittee where he investigates complaints concerning the use of both the Oversight and Checkuser tools. As was pointed out to me by Courcelles' there is a lack of oversighters on this project with only 4. Generally speaking matters that require oversight are urgent and the more trusted hands on deck the better. Please join me in promoting Courcelles as Meta's next oversighter. Tiptoety ^talk 05:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I expected Tiptoety to be the one to run, but he had other ideas! I'm honored by the nomination, and I accept (unless Tiptoety wants to change his mind?). I'm usually around several hours each day, and reachable on IRC, which I consider worth pointing out as I consider availability important in potential oversighters. Courcelles 05:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. Tiptoety ^talk 05:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Support per nominator.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. Sa vh ^ñ 06:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please. Mathonius 07:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Bien oui Addihockey10 07:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay -- Wagino 20100516 09:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Matanya 09:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sim! Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 10:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
For sure. ^Email Vaibhav ^Talk 11:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. Meta could use more oversighters, and Courcelles is certainly qualified. Jafeluv 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment I trust Coutcelles, but I am wondering about the need for more OS. Meta is not that large, in case of emergencies, there are 2 dozens stewards around who call Meta home, who can OS/CU instantly. Why do we need more local OS/CU? can someone clarify first? Theo10011 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Stewards are not supposed to OS on meta, except in emergencies or when there are no local oversighters around. Jafeluv 17:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am aware this is not the best place to do such a discussion but I am sharing the same thought as Theo mentioned above. Stewards are highly active on Meta, and they already have the technical ability to OS something on Meta (without changing the right), so it will be better (or maybe best) to give them a community approval to use something which they already have. Stewards are globally trusted so it will not be a matter of trust, besides all actions are logged. Note, 4-5 local OS will not cover the urgent need, but 43 stewards might. :) — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the only reason stewards have oversight access on Meta is so they can view the contributions of users whose username they have suppressed (due to a bug that is waiting to get fixed). If a steward performs an oversighting on Meta, apart from username suppression through CentralAuth, they are supposed to give themself the local oversighter flag first just like on any other wiki. Jafeluv 07:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support for Courcelles, though I have to agree with Theo10011. I don't think we need more oversighters here. Trijnstel 17:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~ I will support Courcelles in this case without any question, but we have no need for more oversighters or cu here on meta as stewards are already handling the things here. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But that isn't really ideal. Meta wanted local oversighters to handle the workload here, so they elected them. We shouldn't therefore be handling requests routinely, and if stewards are doing so, it shows Meta needs more local oversighters. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

When do we need really oversight on meta? Once a year? And I´m sure that at least three of our os can handle it. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, the last 50 acts of suppression go back to 2nd October. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats something i can´t see :D. But how much of them were connected? I don´t want to start discussion here as this is a wrong place, and as I wrote above I have no problem with Courcelles being OS here on meta. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but only 8 of the 50 were really suppressions. The rest are accounts with abusive usernames which are locked and hidden. Trijnstel 19:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Meta wanted local oversighters" I would like to see a link to that discussion. I have always been a proponent of Stewards having all local rights here, and that dates back to 2009. I have pushed for such things on the admin page and other page, and if there was any mention about CU or OS, I would have seen it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Babel discussion that resulted in the first local OS appointments is here. It's from July 2008. Jafeluv 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) That's the deletion log (changing visibility); the suppression log can be found here (not visible for non-stewards/non-oversighters). Trijnstel 18:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I know Trijnstel, but Bencmq isn´t a sysop on meta as far as i know. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I was looking for an oversighter but couldn't, and then forgot about this... I've asked DerHexer to help complete it. Anyway, I know that I'm not suppose to and normally I wouldn't do this. I really cannot remember why I did that, but from the time it is the period where IRC is mostly silent... Guess it was just no one around... --Bencmq 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn´t matter. As i pointed it out before on the talk, IMO all stews should have meta sysop and ´crat in addition. --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
“As was pointed out to me by Courcelles' there is a lack of oversighters on this project with only 4.” Have you ever asked a meta oversight whether that's true or not? In my opinion, more oversights are not really needed. “Generally speaking […] the more trusted hands on deck the better.” I definitely disagree here. The less oversights we have, the less people are able to see private data. Thinking about resigning my meta oversight access for some months now, your election would be a good reason to finally resign now. So I support your replacement of my oversight access here. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Both Courcelles' and I were looking for a local Oversighter just last night and could not find one, which is what brought us here. That said, I would hate to see you resign simply due to the fact that another trusted user might be added to the team... Tiptoety ^talk 22:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, what do you expect? Not even a group of 5, 10 or even 20 users will be online 24/7. One might perhaps think that oversight is a job where actions should happen very, very quickly. I partially disagree here. So let us reflect what oversight is for, how and why it is separated from the sysop tools and why it was implemented. Oversight is a tool to remove problematic content that shouldn't be accessible to millions of visitors, more or less like what we can do with the sysop tools (and because of the only difference, the different number of people with access, it would be nonsense to implement the oversight tools on wikis with just a few sysops because almost as many users would be able to see the content). So if the problematic revision would be deleted by an admin, the number of people who would be able to see the content would be reduced to less than 300 on almost all wikis, let's say a ten thousandth part. The reason why we have two groups which are able to remove content, is among others possible abuse (so against all wiki policies we assume bad faith here). While enwiki is a place where thousands of administrators have access to hidden entries, lots of them have been inactive for years and it happened there that accounts have been hacked, put up to auction or given away (so it's also a matter of trust), that rarely happened on other wikis afaik. So there's no real hurry on smaller wikis as long as the revision is deleted by a sysop. And it will hardly happen here on metawiki that any sysop will become insane, reveals private data or restores problematic content for which the Foundation could be sued (afaik the most important reason why oversight rights have been implemented). And in my opinion, it would be quite difficult for an outsider to become a sysop here only to find out what's written in a deleted and not oversighted revision. And we also have the problem that there haven't been oversights since the very beginning so that old revision that contain private or libellous data could still be visible (by either sysops or even all users), and it could also happen that we do not get in contact with all problematic edits by now: I suppose that hundreds or even thousands of oversightable edits and log action esp. on the English Wikipedia will not be reported to the oversight team (nor are they able to check all new edits), and thus could be a problem for the Foundation if they are sued. We simply would oversight them afterwards and everything would be okay then; really everything? No, of course not, in Germany it's not enough to reduce the access to problematic content to a small group (of few sysops on a smaller project or few oversights on a project with more sysops). It has to be removed from the database at all (resp. nobody who sues us should be able to have access again so that we could say that it's really gone). All in all, we don't do it very well by increasing the number of people who have access to problematic content (on the one hand because of law issues, on the one hand because of possible abuse, on a third one [;o)] because of losing more and more the percental relation between sysops and oversights [we currently have 88 sysops here on metawiki and four oversights {only a twentieth part} plus 43 steward who also have log access]), and that only because of some minutes or hours in which we wouldn't be sued anyway. We do not have to fear mirrors or search engines as long as these revisions are deleted, and if we missed some, we would immediately remove them if the Foundation is sued and asks us to delete it. So what should be done? We have to teach the sysops again and again that problematic content should be deleted as fast as possible because of the millionfold of visitors, the statistical possibility that the Foundation could be sued and on behalf of every single person who doesn't want to be offended in public or whose data shouldn't be revealed for a huge number of persons. Oversight however is just an addition to reduce the number a bit (and only a bit) more, there's no need to do that very quickly as long as it's already deleted and it is not even a sufficient action in some laws that require a complete removal. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Candidate and answerer are allowed to give an opinion … —DerHexer (Talk) 13:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Support - The problem here is that out of the four oversighters on meta, Magister Mathematicae and Pathoschild are rarely active and Mard is also not the most active person on meta currently. Especially the oversighter tool should be handed out to the very active people who are often around. Stewards usually have enough other work and it is better to let some other people do some work too. -Barras 19:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye, good guy, knows what he's doing. f o x 19:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely. Courcelles is both responsible and responsive, and the fact that two people were looking for an oversighter and couldn't find one seems to indicate that yeah, another one in the ranks could be useful. Fluffernutter 14:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Support, per nominator & nominee --FalconL ^?! 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye. Trusted and qualified. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 15:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. Courcelles is very trusted on enwiki, specifically with CU and OS. No problem with him having similar levels of trust placed in him on Meta. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Fer sure. Highly trusted user, can't think of a single reason why not. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 20:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose (strong oppose) - After his highly inappropriate indef of myself after claiming consensus following 40 minutes of canvassed voting and not waiting for a real response, I contacted multiple Arbitrators because he was up for access. At least 3 of them expressed major concerns and questioned how he was allowed to be an admin anywhere. I am baffled about the pile on support for Courcelles, especially seeing as how many of the people here are from IRC. Obviously, this is about friendship, not trust, not about someone doing what is right, nor about the project. I am disappointed in every single person who supported this blatantly unqualified and untrustworthy user. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, many voters are not active on Meta, but they are all active on IRC and there is a commonality to them all suddenly finding this page. This has been a disturbing trend and many of the people here I have pointed out as convening on other pages with privilege access (OTRS). This tends to be a reoccurring action surrounding many of Courcelles activities. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

LauraHale was editing Meta just minutes before she voted. I think it safe to say they came upon it on their own. Tiptoety ^talk 06:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No. LauraHale is an active participant on IRC and friend of many here but not an active Meta user. This page is not easy to find and would require a link. We do not display the vote as other sister projects do. This is a clear case of mass canvassing, and I have had that confirmed by multiple people who use the -en Wiki room. This is extremely disappointing, and if Meta had a policy against such canvassing I would have requested at least 6 blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to this request on Recent changes. Also, I too have spoken with many of the users you have accused of being canvassed, all of them said they came across it well on their own. Instead of doing all your work behind the closed doors of IRC, why don't you have these users who "confirmed" it come out and say it in the open. Tiptoety ^talk 17:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am one of about 6 people who are not admin here that patrol the Recent changes. I have also spoken with many users saying that there was word being passed around to bring people here. I wont have them come forth publicly unless there is guarantee that there will be major ramifications, including blocks and possible bans, of not only those who came here but also those who canvass. This is disgusting. You have to be utterly gullible to think that they just happened upon this. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

While I am going to assume good faith about this, there have been an unusually high number of supporting votes from people who are not otherwise active at meta on this request. Most of the people in question are IRC users, and active on enwiki. Just an observation, and not something that I'm going to be opposing over due to a lack of substantial evidence. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There was clear IRC canvassing here that resulted in a "consensus" being declared by Courcelles after 40 minutes and when those in IRC knew I just said "brb going to the store". His original edits are not those of a standard newbie editor, especially with him using warning templates and happening on pages that don't mark a standard inexperienced person's first exposure to a Wiki. He also went through the "ranks" in the 6 month periods, always climbing from position to position. We have been burned by these things before. I think this is a trend that shows that there is no way to trust this user. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That particular case was publicly discussed in #wikimedia-stewards, though granted the only people who were discussing it happened to agree in that case. I do agree that his call of consensus after such a short time frame wasn't appropriate, though one such incident isn't enough to make me oppose. I can't speak as to your other points. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And a side thing - I was banned from #wikimedia-stewards when Abigor/Huib was attacking me on Commons and he pushed for me to be banned whereever he could. He was stoking up the sentiment against me that everyone I talked to on IRC knew about (and thus Courcelles would have had to have known) to get me banned while he was simultaneously asking to be unbanned. Isn't this just a little problematic that such people like Abigor, who were trusted, use these IRC channels to canvass? I think the whole IRC problems would be a good way not to trust any of those people with any permissions, as they are most likely gaming the system and thus violating any trust we can have in them doing the right thing, let alone the fact that time after time the people who act that way have committed very bad abuses at the WMF wikis. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself who on their 5th and 6th edit does this? Who happens to know the page, who knows how to redirect, then knows to restore it? Especially when this appears to be a controversial action since the page has been proposed to be deleted before? New people edit articles on topics that interest them then blindly get into disputes with no understanding of how to work the system. Courcelles comes right off the bat into controversial topics, navigates them, and produces very few edits until 2009, giving a sense of a "background" without anything but that which we have seen many times before. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, I was not making a blanket statement about all the voters but about LauraHale specifically. She even said this herself. Am I stating that I feel zero canvassing has taken place? No. It is more than possible that it has, but if it has then the only evidence I have seen suggest it was done by people other than Courcelles. As for as the canvassing is concerned, if people came forward and said they were in fact canvassed to support by Courcelles I would not take any action against them but instead would probably change my vote. So far, I have seen zero clear evidence to support Courcelles has been involved in any canvassing though. Tiptoety ^talk 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"I have seen suggest it was done by people other than Courcelles" Why? Because they feel they have a group? Meta is a small project, and it is becoming apparent that it is being run by a group of people who have effectively taken over a few chat rooms. Doesn't that bother you in the slightest? Courcelles appeared out of no where on en.wiki, started performing edits that are beyond a regular new person, and quickly accelerated through the bits with all the "right" answers with the minimum timing. Then we have a group of people who are basically canvassing and pushing him through. Haven't we had enough of these kind of problems? It would seem that if we really cared about the project, we would do a complete 180 and start making sure such a thing never happens. I have never seen Courcelles be nice. He has either been quiet or too quick to judge. He has the support of people who have no real connection to the place and are willing to canvass on his behalf. Those two items right there make it impossible for me to trust him, and if everyone else feels like that is the new acceptable level then Meta is truly doomed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Support I've found Courcelles to be extremely helpful, to be knowledgable of Wikipedia policy, Commons policy and other WMF related project guidelines. He does good work and tirelessly works to improve the project. He has arbitrator support and Sue Gardner. No evidence of any problems caused by this valuable contributor. --LauraHale 03:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar is not an endorsement of an OS election. Furthermore, I've received both the praise of Jimbo and the Foundation for my admining work. That doesn't actually mean anything. The actual barnstar should concern people - it points out how Courcelles started in 2009, quickly rose through the ranks, and has a pattern that is almost exact as to that followed by those like Poetlister when they start new accounts and seek a lot of power. Combined with his inability to know what "consensus" means and the canvassing, Courcelles is more likely a candidate to ban then give a very trusted bit to. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Mardetanha ^talk 10:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Very good candidate for it. -Djsasso 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Great candidate Warfieldian 19:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Striker ^talk 19:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)