Meta:Requests for adminship/Courcelles 2

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

Courcelles 2

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

Ending 9 November 2018 21:04 (UTC)

Forgive me from doing this from my alt (acknowledged on enwp's userpages of both accounts, (see [1]) but I'm not exactly on a computer I control -- I'm sitting in the British Airways lounge using one of their outdated machines here in Philadelphia. And I'm going on vacation, so this will have to do, because darned if I can do all this paperwork from my phone!

So, we seem to be in a bit of a dispute about rather or not I'm still an admin. I made ten logged actions, plus ten suppressions over the course of six months, but somehow failed to make ten edits. My bad. I'd like to stay an admin and oversighter, and I feel I use both rights to the benefit of the community and the projects. So, let's see where this goes. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Confirmed, from said phone. Courcelles 21:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Support why the hell are we even here? Probably time for a review of our interpretation of rules that we are having this ridiculous dance. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sceptical, you seem to have vanished almost entirely from this project. Can we expect a little more in the future? At the moment, I see no grounds to support this RfA, unfortunately. --Vogone (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however I would encourage more involvement in the Meta community in the future. --Rs chen 7754 00:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oversighter doesn't need to be super visible, they just need to be available when they're called upon. I think he is well available. — regards, Revi 10:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was just a RFA, not for oversighter as well? --Rs chen 7754 16:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup I know that, but I believe he still can keep his admin. — regards, Revi 19:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Trusted member of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community. We are (mostly) all volunteers here, and sometimes we can’t be as active as we would like. Delighted to support this longtime Wiki-worker! Jus da fax 08:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support keep or immediately restore as admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support largely because the interpretation of activity requirements is outdated and is not in line with the current needs of meta. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think someone with just 6 edits in a half year should be an admin. --MF-W 10:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree fundamentally with MF-Warburg. We have collapsing levels of participation on Meta and making six edits in half a year doesn't seem unreasonable now. I think it's deeply shameful that activity has collapsed that far, but it's a reflection of how irrelevant Meta is becoming. I do think it's something it would be useful to resolve, to try and get Meta busier, but until that happens, enforcing minimum activity levels is just a euphemism for making otherwise active administrators like Courcelles and Danny B make pointless, vacuous edits to keep pedants like MF-Warburg happy. Nick (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if "otherwise active" is an appropriate description for 5 days of minor-most activity in 6 months, as can be seen in the logs (yes, last week there were some more actions again). Basically, Courcelles (unlike Danny B. who indeed has shown some more continuous admin activity) had left this project entirely which makes MF-Warburg's point very valid, in my opinion. --Vogone (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you wanting/needing Courcelles to involve themselves with or help with ? You seem to be demanding activity without any evidence activity is needed. Nick (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If no activity is needed, then no adminship is needed either. I do not understand this point. --Vogone (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing edits with actions, such a basic failure of understanding is unfortunate. It is entirely possible that hundreds of actions are needed but no edits are needed for those actions. That's why we should be assessing logged actions and not logged edits when measuring activity. Nick (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am I? I was making the point, that a user who neither edits this wiki nor performs any administrative actions, with very few exceptions, can very well have their RFA be opposed due to a lack of activity, and ideally, without the person bringing that point up being insulted in a consecutive comment. --Vogone (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He had 15 suppressions in this time period (from what I've been told), which obviously won't show up in the log entries. That's significantly more valuable than 4 additional edits (and really, 2 by my count since the protections count as edits, but who's counting...) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but unfortunately unrelated to this request. --Vogone (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its related to this request. The argument is that he's not active, well, he is, and he's doing very valuable stuff that the majority of meta admins can't do-- and can't see. When you consider the suppressions, it makes MF-W and your argument very weak in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: jfyi, there are 4 suppressions between April 1 and October 1. Matiia (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Courcelles told me 15, and I'm assuming neither of you are lying, so he must be counting some other time frame. I still think my point stands: he's doing valuable work. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are free to insult me for applying clear policies and instead to support arbitrary, anarchical dictatorship by whoever can push the button. --MF-W 08:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(a) The policy is not clear, since one part talks about logged actions and another part talks about logged edits and (b) what the merry fuck are you talking about when it comes to 'arbitrary, anarchical dictatorship'. I think the nonsense you've just posted does your reputation for competency and common sense a great disservice, something I suspect will become more apparent still in February 2019. Nick (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nick, whatever you may think about MF-W and his opinion, personal attacks are not okay on Meta. --Rs chen 7754 19:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've not made any personal attacks, that's not an issue. Nick (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754 is at least the third user on this page who perceived that comment as a personal attack. Perhaps you should reconsider your tone, also in other comments you have made during this debate. --Vogone (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that I am not permitted to describe someone who is being pedantic as a pedant, but I apologise to MF-W for calling him a pedant when I witnessed him being pedantic. If I see him being pedantic in future, I will refrain from calling him a pedant. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. Nick (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754 provided a link, I would suggest you to read the content of the page it redirects you to. Thanks. --Vogone (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, but many thanks for your concern Vogone. I do so appreciate the very special way you have of trying to belittle people who hold an opinion contrary to your own. Nick (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Activity level is low, but still better than none.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 21:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually involve myself in these, but I took just one look at their log and I think this entire "RFA" is useless. They use the bit just fine. It seems daft to desysop someone who uses the admin bit but doesn't make an arbitrary number of edits within a period of time. Seems like you're just asking admins to make ten dummy edits every six months just to keep the bit--a pointless endeavour, especially given how Courcelles has certainly made more than ten logged admin actions within the last six months. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles is a regularly active (and productive) community member, so I don't see a reason not to. -- Hoo man (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Productive, trustworthy, experienced user. Vermont (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per billinghurst. Praxidicae (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Valuable admin in the past, although I agree with Rschen7754. RadiX ∞ 10:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Defender (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 supports, 1 oppose. Done. Matiia (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.