User talk:Courcelles/Archive 1

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Courcelles, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing! -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, someone finally found a reason to turn this thing blue. I guess that shows how rarely I actually come to Meta. :| Courcelles 21:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For removing vandalism on my talk page. Appreciated. Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 17:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good day! Courcelles 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted vandasliticly[edit]

Hello

I had uploaded a file (100_0164.Jpg) that was deleted, could it be restored and moved to commons? SchoolcraftT 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin here, so I don't have the ability to actually do that. User:PeterSymonds deleted the image. If you still have a copy of it, it would be much simpler to go here and upload it to Commons directly, assuming the file is your own creation and you are willing to release it under a free license. Courcelles 22:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

english wiki problems[edit]

Hello I noticed that your an admin con en-wiki and I was wondering if you can help me with a problem realted to a block that was placed on me about two years. SchoolcraftT 23:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can look into it, though my power is very limited to do anything about it. Have you contacted the Ban Appeals Subcommitteevia e-mail? They're the body designed to hear appeals after an account has had talk page access removed. Courcelles 01:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what about simply re-opening access to my talk page? 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be overturning someone else's admin action without any real cause, something I try very hard not to do. Use the "e-mail this user" link to your left and make your case. If it's good, I'll consider it. Courcelles 07:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well is something that your going to have to do yourself. i understand your possition, but petersymonds won't listen to me. he has been causing me too much trouble over the past year, specifically getting my block on en-wiki overturned, and false troll accusations. I hatted to put you on the spot, nbut is seem like this my only reasonable course of action other that the BAS. I've had some bad experiences with e-mail, thats why I try to avoid it at all costs. I'll explain that at a latter date. SchoolcraftT 08:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your block looks legitimate to me, as well as the revocation of talk page privileges, and you're not giving me anything to go on to reopen the door. The BASC is the body designated to handle such problems, not finding someone on another project who happens to be an enwiki admin. Courcelles 10:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks may be deeving. SchoolcraftT 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC) By the way you left off an "o' in who.[reply]

Very well... consider this a formal request that unless you have something to discuss relevant to this local project, to leave me alone and go through proper channels for an appeal. I will not be of assistance- I believe your block to be entirely correct, and see no benefits for the English Wikipedia in modifying or lifting it. Please do not post on this page again unless it involves something actually on Meta. Courcelles 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

Courcelles, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Meta. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests for deletion, but also Talk:Spam blacklist and Talk:Interwiki map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

A tip: add this page Meta:Administrators' discussion index to your watchlist, it tracks the latest activity to various sections of many of the important pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-admin @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta.

Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List of administrators and the Template:List of administrators.

Congrats Courcelles, you'll make a great addition to the team. :) The Helpful One 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Courcelles. Theo10011 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats... The helpfulone was too helpful :D --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all :) And you're even nice enough to being pastries! Courcelles 08:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant[edit]

Hiya Courcelles, First of all Apologies for not being sufficiently clear on IRC. Just wanted to leave you a note - this [1] was quite clear, I only meant you could modify the Mediawiki file yourself to "your most active page" as in -[2]. Sorry for any confusion, I was busy at the moment and prob. didn't explain myself. Thanks and keep up the good work. Theo10011 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Looks good, I tweaked a little, changing "pages" to "page(s)", since many may only have one page with any real activity on it, but I think it'll be clearer now. Courcelles 21:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Thank you very much indeed for your response to my contribution in the forum. Kudos 2U. Greetings and salutations from S.I. 'Patio' Oliantigna 08:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression in Chinese wikipedia[edit]

I have posted a cases about oppression in Chinese wikipedia. Looking forward to your assisstance, recommendations or judgment. Thank you very much.--Coekon 08:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I can't read Chinese, and have no involvment in Chinese projects, it would be irresponsible for me to post commentary. Courcelles 20:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Images[edit]

See my response to your message. --EpochFail 00:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

Hello. Exactly what are you referring to here? Please respond here, on my Wikipedia account. Thank you.

This edit. Courcelles 06:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's being deleted?[edit]

I saw your note on my user talk page. What page is being deleted? Couldn't find a reference on the Requests for deletion page. Thanks -- Jimbojw 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Courcelles 18:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat[edit]

Every sysop should monitor this page ;). --WizardOfOz ^talk 04:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist, but on Meta, it's actually the RC page that Firefox always takes me to. It's still courtesy when you undo someone's admin action to let them know you did it, and why. Courcelles 04:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima[edit]

Hi Courcelles, I'd like to ask you to unblock Ottava Rima please. The user could be placed on civility probation, and reblocked for even a small violation, but I believe he should be given one more last chance. There are some mitigating circumstances that could explain his outburst.Thanks.--Mbz1 15:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's already had a last chance, this is the second time he's gotten blocked for gross personal attacks here on Meta. I'm not going to unblock him, and consensus seems quite significantly in favour of the indef. Courcelles 16:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. Yes, I saw Ottava was blocked indefinitely once before. It is strange that the very first block was indefinite. Aren't the duration of the blocks suppose to be escalating starting from one day up? Besides Ottava post should be looked at through the prism of the post made by IP, the one he was responding to:

"But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this. Since you simply ignored the real content of my comment, because you don't have ANYTHING to say against my arguments, I consider that you, in fact, don't know any kind of intelligent response. Well done! Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world. "

OK, what about unblocking him under my responsibility, which means if Ottava is uncivil, we both Ottava and me should be blocked. This approach has some advantages. First of all Ottava would know that he is responsible not only for himself, but also for other editor, and if Ottava is uncivil ever again Meta could get rid of not just one but two problematic editors (ottava and me) at once :-) Please let's try it one more time. Thanks.--Mbz1 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, that first block being indef is not so strange if you look at the history. "Indef" means "until further notice." My first block on Wikipedia was indef, it's not uncommon, especially for established editors. Have you read Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima? Have you reviewed Ottava's body of contributions since he started editing here again at the beginning of July? I was preparing to add to the RfC when Ottava was blocked again, and made indef when reviewed, making it moot. If you really want to help Ottavaq, Mbz1, give him good counsel, help him to understand how he managed to exhaust the patience of what is normally a very patient community. I know it's patient because they put up with me! --Abd 00:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd is correct here, and as a related matter, any deal that places one contributor hostage to the good behaviour of another strikes me as an incredibly bad idea, and an unacceptable precedent. Such a sword of Damocles would not be fair to you, Mbz1, or to Ottava. Courcelles 10:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles: you put this far better than I could. –SJ talk | translate 21:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users may indeed support other users, and the active presence of supportive users can be part of a decision to unblock; attempts to "reform" users without support that the users accept often go awry.

Consider my bans on Wikipedia

Originally, the "MYOB ban" had a mentorship provision, but it was decided that "mentorship doesn't work" or something like that, so this was yanked. I had a sitting arbitrator who wanted to mentor me, but he was privately told, no, that wasn't possible. So there was no supervision. Long story, that was not a condition that favored me! It meant that enforcement of the two bans -- and the MYOB ban was seriously unclear, never before and never since declared for anyone -- was up to administrators who were not familiar with the situation. I think, naturally, that I was 100% right. And being "right" is often a fast track to being blocked and banned. These are communities, it's about collaboration and cooperation. However, those bans got stricter and stricter, until I realized it was just too much trouble to comply, so, around May or so, I dropped compliance. (I found, by the way, that I actually got more done once I stepped outside of respect for the bans, that is part of what I documented on WV. If you want to know about that, ask.) You were the last admin to block me (as Abd) on Wikipedia, and, given the information you had, your action was completely correct. I wouldn't dream of asking you to unblock me at this point. But if I ever decide I want to be unbanned, I might ask you then. It's unlikely, I have much more productive work to do, within and without the WMF.

My view is that the closing admin for any block or ban is the administrator of the block or ban, by default. In my case, I expect I'd need to show you good cause, and you might decide to consult the community, or not. It would be up to you.
This is relevant here because you could, indeed, decide to unblock Ottava. What you do, you may undo, always.
Mbz1, the person you should be talking with is Ottava, not us. We'll cooperate, I'm sure, if you give us a basis. --Abd 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Abigor[edit]

[3]. Courcelles, you say this would be "opening that can of worms again," as if it had been opened before, i.e., by repeated "second chances". If you have time, please take a look at Talk:Requests_for_comment/Abigor#The_nlwiki_connection. The most important point: Abigor's block log shows clearly that meta problems erupted rapidly, that he has no history here of ignored warnings and short blocks, which we would expect to see with a user who has been given many chances. There is no harm in unblocking him, as far as anything that can reasonably be anticipated. He had no history of any disruptive behavior on meta, until that vandalism episode and the 'bot fiasco, all of which happened at about the same time. The 'bot appears to have been a good-faith effort to help, merely clumsily and inappropriately done, and nothing like that will happen again, I'm sure, or if it does, having unblocked Abigor will not have aided the "nefarious scheme." He will be watched closely. It would actually make checkuser easier, not harder.

And against the "no harm," there is possible benefit. Abigor is an experienced antispam editor, and he could make reports at the spam-blacklist page. He's an admin on at least two wikis, and admins often need meta access. And, of course, he is a member of LangCom, and, as far as we can tell, is considered useful there.

Please reconsider. Thanks. --Abd 14:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My general opinion is that this user should be under a global ban, so, I won't be reconsidering my position on this proposal. Given he ruined the trust of three communities, there's no reason, or benefit, to give him any more. Courcelles 09:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike[edit]

Seems we added that link at the same time, I undid the double entries at the talk page and in the log. Best regards, Finn Rindahl 09:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Our edits went through at the exact same minute, you'd think mine should have failed on an edit conflict... Strange that it didn't. Courcelles 09:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously enough they failed on the spam blacklist itself (only my edit was saved), but not on the talk and the log. Not sure how that could happen, but no damage done :) Finn Rindahl 11:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on the upload campaign editor flag[edit]

Hi,

Saw your note in the Meta page about the need to discuss in commons about granting the Upload Wizard campaign editor flag. Should i start an RFC or is the current note in admin noticeboard enough?. I checked the existing editors who have this flag: Neilk has changed his own user rights to this on Aug 29 and Erik too has changed his own user rights on Aug 30. The other documentation i have been able to find so for are this mediawiki page and developer Joroens' blog post. I am kind of clueless how to proceed next - should i initiate an RFC (it might take too long and not in time for our contest) or ask someone with the right to create a new campaign for us or ask for temporary flag for one of us for a fixed duration. Please help me out --Sodabottle 03:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighter[edit]

Congratulations! The community of Meta Wikimedia has elected you to the position of oversighter. All the best! fr33kman 00:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fr33kman. And, I'm not one for thankspam, but thanks to the community for the time and support. Courcelles 02:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disappointing that you on the on hand saw the need to nominate yourself for oversight on metawiki because of a late response when you didn't find any oversight on IRC for some minutes but haven't tried to mail them (I at least got no mail) while on the other hand you didn't give your opinion on my statement for hours and days (although you've been active here), concerning oversight in general and your case in particular. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighter[edit]

Congratulations! The community of Meta Wikimedia has elected you to the position of oversighter. All the best! fr33kman 00:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fr33kman. And, I'm not one for thankspam, but thanks to the community for the time and support. Courcelles 02:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disappointing that you on the on hand saw the need to nominate yourself for oversight on metawiki because of a late response when you didn't find any oversight on IRC for some minutes but haven't tried to mail them (I at least got no mail) while on the other hand you didn't give your opinion on my statement for hours and days (although you've been active here), concerning oversight in general and your case in particular. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighter[edit]

Congratulations! The community of Meta Wikimedia has elected you to the position of oversighter. All the best! fr33kman 00:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fr33kman. And, I'm not one for thankspam, but thanks to the community for the time and support. Courcelles 02:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disappointing that you on the on hand saw the need to nominate yourself for oversight on metawiki because of a late response when you didn't find any oversight on IRC for some minutes but haven't tried to mail them (I at least got no mail) while on the other hand you didn't give your opinion on my statement for hours and days (although you've been active here), concerning oversight in general and your case in particular. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]