Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments/CU/Courcelles: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:34, 27 September 2011

Revision as of 19:50, 27 September 2011

Line 42:

In April 2011, you were appointed to ArbCom's [[WP:AUSC|Audit Subcommittee]]. What experiences do you bring from there that would be an asset for you as a full CheckUser? Note that I am not looking for specifics, but more general experiences as a result of your time on the subcommittee. –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

: '''A:''' Well, your third question directly hits against something the AUSC reported on earlier in the year, whether tying an IP to an account was permissible under policy. AUSC work is very much a crash course in everything that functionaries deal with in using these tools, as not only does an AUSC member have to be fully capable of using them (I continue to insist that opining on the validity of a tool's use you don't know how to use is unwise), AUSC members have to be able to determine (though discussion, to be fair) whether certain usages of the tools was legitimate. AUSC members have to learn, quickly, as much as they can about the tools to be any use on that subcommittee, and to internalise the policies related to their use, and what constitutes misuse. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that Mr Wales has unblocked me, will you be marking for close any SPIs which come your way? [[Special:Contributions/93.96.236.175|93.96.236.175]] ([[User talk:93.96.236.175|talk]]) 10:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In view of my above question, why did you just block me for six months?

And why has Elockid got into the act, blocking me for a further three months? Also, since when has a three month block been the norm for an IP with a clear block log?

In blocking me for a further week, Fluffernutter says I have an axe to grind. I have no axe to grind, and no evidence has been produced to suggest that I do.

=====Comments=====