User talk:Courcelles/Archive 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

question

Hi Courcelles, RFC states "Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed". (highlighted by me). Does it mean that I could submit RFC on Gwen Gale's conduct on English wikipedia, and if not, why not. Thanks.--Mbz1 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Is there a reason these concerns should nor be raised on enwp? (I have not ever read much about the drama that involved you and Gwen, so my understanding of the situation at this point is close to zero.) As to Meta RFC's, I really have no idea what they are used for in reality, and the question is likely better directed to Talk:Requests for comment. Looking at them, it appears they are used for 1)cross-wiki issues or 2)issues on wikis without local dispute resolution processes. Courcelles 19:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    The only reason I cannot do anything about this on English wiki is that I am blocked there. Although it is a self-requested block, but it is the block that directly linked to another block imposed by Gwen Gale.
    I guess, that, if even you do not know, if I could submit RfC here, I will just go ahead and submit it. I've nothing to loose.
    Thanks and a Happy New Year.--Mbz1 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So what do we do now?

Hi Courcelles, you are a very experienced admin on a few wikis. You are also an arbitrator on English wiki. You are probably aware that I wrote Requests for comment/Gwen Gale, in which I stated that:

Courcelles, I believe the point is reached when keeping silence is no longer an option.I accused a respected administrator in being a bully, in being dishonest, in blocking editors when involved and so on. I believe I either should be proven wrong and be blocked on meta, or some actions should be done on my request because although I called it "request for comments" it is actually more like request for arbitration.

I was blocked many times. I consider at least 80% of my blocks to be unfair. For example Sandstein blocked me for violation of my topic ban on I/P conflict for an edit I made in Rothschild Family. There is no single word in that article about Palestinians, Arabs, war and so on. How did I violate my ban by editing this article? Most others blocks aren't any more valid.Have I ever complained about any of these blocks. No, never! So why I do now? I do because Gwen Gale took blocking to a whole new level, which is bullying.

I assure you I do not hold grudges against Gwen Gale. I am not after her blood. The only thing I want is preventing her from striking an innocent editor again. If she only acknowledged there are problems with her using her tools, and promised to fix these...but so far she said nothing.

How many admins you know who imposed blocks for fixing "a punctuation typo"? How many admins you know who blocked an editor for telling Jimbo how he (the editor) made $1,000 donation to Wikipedia?

Courcelles, may I please ask you to take a look at this section, in which I presented 4 instances of Gwen Gale making bad blocks while involved. The differences were taken from four consecutive years:2008,2009,2010 and 2011 (with the last one being only about 2 months ago) Do we have to wait until 2012 will be added there. You know that an admin could be desysoped for making a single unblock like happened to User:Trusilver. The question is how many bad blocks an admin should impose that he/she would get desysoped?

I probably will leave a similar message on some others arbitrators talk pages.

Thanks.--Mbz1 00:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. You could ignore me, but you could not and should not ignore the evidences I presented. While some of Gwen's blocks are bad blocks,the others are simply unbelievable! For example, please take a look at this block: On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)". The user who started contributing to wikipedia in 2006 was blocked over this 2009 edit for "vandalism only". Really? But please see the article. Funguy06 was right! He vandalized nothing.This block is not just a bad block. This block is unbelievable. The user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request. Now, if ArbCom does nothing to stop a dishonest bully, arbcom is becoming her co-conspirator in destroying wikipedia. Regards.--Mbz1 17:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the next victim of Gwen Gale's bullying is going to harm himself?

Hi Courcelles, I've just noticed this exchange at Alison's talk page, and then I noticed this post by WMF and now please take a look here. As you could see this user (I believe he is very young) wrote an unblock request in which he directly mentioned (complained) about Gwen Gale, and she was the one who declined his unblock! Doesn't she understand that this user feels hounded by her? I documented this misuse of tools yesterday in my RFC before later developments . Of course nobody payed any attention. Is next Gwen's victim is going to harm himself under indifferent watch of arbcom and WMF? Could you sleep well with a protected bully at the run while my well documented findings simply getting ignored? BTW please also notice her idiotic explanation about email. The user said he cannot email because she blocked his email, and her response is: "By email I have not meant clicking an "email" link on a Wikipedia website page. I mean email (as in "off-wiki" as I've said before). I have meant you must use a non-Wikipedia email service, such as the one provided by your Internet service provider or a web-based email provider like Gmail, Yahoo or Hotmail. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)" The user was not asking how to use his email. He was asking what email address to send his email to. Of course, if she has given him email address of arbcom, he would have been ignored anyway. But the bottom line is the user felt so desperate because she was the one who bullied him once again as a heavily involved admin. I am not saying his unblock request should have been accepted. I am saying Gwen Gale should not have been the one to decline it, and she did it at the time I have been documenting her other bullying.--Mbz1 05:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mbz1, I'm going to say this once, and then I'd appreciate it if further issues with Gwen Gale were not brought to this talk page. (If they are, I have no intention of replying) It is time to back away, and drop this stick. Gwen Gale is not a perfect admin, for we have no such creatures. But she's not this bogeyman you want her to be seen as, either. This battle has been fought, and I've no particular interest in seeing it continued to be fought, as such is sure to be unproductive. Courcelles 05:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Gwen Gale RfC here

Can you arrange for it to be removed from search engines' indexing? It's enough that searching for "Gwen Gale" returns a number of attack blogs (which are pretty obvious who authored them if you compare them with this RfC). Those blogs violate the en.wp Outing policy, which unfortunately doesn't have a meta counterpart. So, I suppose running attack blogs is about par for metapedians. ASCIIn2Bme 16:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of courtesy I've put "noindex" on the page which will help in part. --Herby talk thyme 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
That helps, herby, thanks. That RC is, IMO, rather an abuse of our processes here, but it seems process is going to let it play out here, as much as I disagree with that decision. Courcelles 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nemo bis

Hi Courcelles. This administrator has now blocked Future Perfect at Sunrise, while clearly involved in discussions with him. Is it possible to look into this and somehow get Meta run in more normal way? Thanks, 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • As strange as I find it all, Meta doesn't have the same "thou shalt not" idea about acting while involved that enwp does. We're smaller over here and follow more a "be reasonable" standard than hard rules and bright lines. That said, we have, IMO, been using the block button too much in this current mess (though there has been some bad behaviour, blocking experienced, good-faith users from other projects is not something I consider optimal for Meta, though it is sometimes necessary), but the block of FPAS isn't totally out-of-line in the sense of others I have seen in my time here. (The block is over in ten hours anyway. Sticking my nose in would be just restoking the drama that is starting to die down). Courcelles 05:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Impression

[No reply necessary/ impression feedback]

Given the genesis of the current extraordinary circumstances, the direct participation of a sitting member of en.wikipedia arbitration committee in these events is probably not a good idea in the big picture (not to mention the specific matter of morale of meta administrative volunteers). While it is true that you are a meta administrator, and usually it would not be unreasonable to exercise that authority in day-to-day affairs — the current situation is NOT usual.

(sotto voce) Far too much pressure has been placed on various meta admins from the perspective of en.wikipedia norms strictly applied, ignoring the often outrageous behavior of those following the link over to meta from AN/I and AN (areas with social dynamics issues which will have to be addressed at some point in the future as Wikipedia structure/design evolves to match the culturally dominant role which it has achieved).
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hello Courcelles. In my personal process of proposing updating and clarifying all we have at meta I've created Meta:Oversighters due to the recent public requests for revision removals; to provide a guidance of all those seeking help from an oversighter. Feel free to modify it at your wish and, also, if you find it useless; you've got my blessing to delete it and revert the change. Best regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 16:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not only do I not find it useless, I would find an Meta OS mailing list useful... let me circulate the idea... Courcelles 16:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I'd support the idea of getting a Meta-Wiki oversight mailing list because you'll reach all OS at once (or even an OTRS queue as other projects did so tickets can be stored and linked to in the logs, and the email address of the oversighter is not disclosed). However on the other hand I do not know if the level of requests is frequent enough to warrant it. Notwithstanding if you all consider that either a ML or an OTRS queue would do your work easier I won't object. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 17:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The volume of requests isn't that heavy (nowhere near enwp which seems to average one every two hours or so), but the inconvenience of separately e-mailing four different people is very high for the "customer" end (to use an OTRS term). Courcelles 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Random header

Hi, Courcelles/Archive 2. This IP is a shared one that belongs to almost 600 public high schools in Comunidad Valenciana, Spain. Therefore, Vandalism is unavoidable from this IP. A soft blocking will be a very good idea if you find new problems with vandalism. Thank You. --195.57.19.100 10:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I posted a comment over MGA's talk page. I also agree with your decision but I'd like to see all that fair use/copyvio removed from Meta. A rewritting of the deletion policy may be useful. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh, I agree totally they need to go, but it isn't one admin's call to wipe out every fair use image on this project via speedy, We either need to produce an exemption doctrine or delete them in the near future, however. (And I'm honestly not bothered by which route we go on that question, we just need to settle it) Courcelles 16:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There's ongoing discussion at Meta:Requests for deletion regarding the issue. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you edited the initial naming straw poll for the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll is now open and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 23:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 21:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser policy/Users with CheckUser access

Hi! Would you mind updating the enwiki section? I updated the oversight one, but the CU one is protected, and I'm not an admin here. --Rschen7754 07:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The only changes I saw needed were the removal of the two sysadmins, which I've done. Anything I missed? (And I really see no need for that to be fully protected... it doesn't "control" anything, like the identification noticeboard does) Courcelles 17:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Seems good. Thanks! --Rschen7754 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello Courcelles. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation administrator flag

Hello, I see that you have translation administrator flag but apparently never used it; if I'm mistaken, forgive me and consider the rest of the message for what it's worth. The current wording of the policy says «Meta administrators are able to add (and remove) themselves to the group if they are willing to help other users or need it», so you can add it to yourself at any time; but you may consider removing it for now. This would also help users willing to contact translation admins, making it easier. While I'm at it: please watchlist Meta:Babylon if you have not yet. Thanks, Nemo 11:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

IPBE

I'm a bit confused by your IPBE grant, global blocks do not affect meta and as such if he's really caught in a global block he can post freely. Snowolf How can I help? 22:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The IP is also blocked locally, I'd link it, but rather not broadcast his IP even wider. Courcelles 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please block

User:INaCAGE Music as promotional username--Musamies (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Done for spamming. (We don't tend to do username blocks here on Meta for promotional usernames) Courcelles 07:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking a look - I sure thought something was off. --Rschen7754 08:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for feedback on my GSoC'14 proposal

Hi Courcelles,

I am planning to work on the project titled "Tools for mass migration of legacy translated wiki content" this summer under Google Summer of Code. I have drafted a proposal for the same over the past few weeks. This project is going to help the translation adminstrators like you in a great way, as it would completely automate the tedious manual task of preparing a page for translation and then importing the translations into the Translate extension. You can check the proposal page for detailed information on how I plan to accomplish this.

As you would be an end user of this tool, it would be great if you could go through the proposal and provide feedback/suggestions. Your feedback would definitely help me improve the proposal as well help in creating an even better tool. You can do the same on the discussion page of the proposal or reply here, whichever is convenient for you. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you!

P.S: I need to submit the proposal to Google by March 19, 2014.

BPositive (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)