Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments/Courcelles

Courcelles

Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

Hello, folks, I'm Courcelles. I've been an active editors and administrator here for a while now, and I think I would be an asset to the Audit Subcommittee, if you will have me. I've said before that a prompt that boils down to "talk about yourself" without specifics is one of my worst fears; I'd rather discuss the weather in Kathmandu! I consider the audit subcommittee one of the more important functions in the governance of Wikipedia as currently structured, as checkuser and oversight are the only things on-wiki that can leave no trace they were ever done, even to a sysop, and that makes confidence in their use a difficult thing to establish. I have no reason to distrust any of the CU/OS operators, let me be clear, but that lessens by not a bit the necessity of a "watchdog" like the AUSC to investigate community concerns and maintain community confidence. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you have.

Standard questions for all candidates

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

• (Oh, great, a "talk about yourself" prompt. My least favourite thing.) I seem to go through cycles on Wikipedia- which is another way of saying I've dabbled in a little bit of everything. In general the skills of the auditor and the administrator or editor aren't all that different. They all require you to put your nose to the grindstone and get stuff done, and get it done right. I never have as much time to write as I'd like, but I don't think I'm deficient in that area. I've done quite a bit of work as an admin, which means a few honest screw-ups here and there. I've gone four floors underground to find a single number in shelves that hadn't been dusted since the Clinton Administration. I've communicated with people who were not happy with us on OTRS. (And trust me, I hate talk about yourself prompts. The right answer to this one will come to me... next Monday. Got questions? I've likely got answers.) Courcelles 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

• I could bore you and tell you how I studied math and statistics for a few years in college; I did, but that's not what I consider the AUSC to be be about. I'm familiar with binary arithmetic and statistics... but I'm not that much of a computer guy. I understand the basics, and I can almost always figure out what I need to learn without bugging the IT guy, but you won't catch me programming a gadget more complicated than an Excel spreadsheet anytime soon! Courcelles 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?

• No to the advanced flags. I do have OTRS access, to info-en, permissions-en, permissions-commons. Courcelles 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate

Question from {Example}

Comments

Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org]

• I have found this user to be one of the most consistently helpful, clueful, levelheaded, and active users on the project. I think he would help increase the efficiency of the AUSC. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As Fetchcomms well points out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot (perhaps most) of the interactions I've had with this user (usually at wp:FLC) have rarely been constructive. He has displayed an unusual amount of stubbornness and I have found him to display little interest in really working towards finding a compromise. I don't know if this position fits well for a person that tends to display an attitude along the lines "I know better than other reviewers". Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had Courcelles' talk page watchlisted since long before he was sysopped and have never found him anything short of polite, proactive and extremely sensible. Admittedly, I have very little contact with the featured content processes and haven't observed his work there, but my interactions with him outside of that are more than enough to convince me that he'd be a responsible and effective member of the AUSC. I can't think of an editor I'd endorse more. sonia♫ 09:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]