User talk:Simon Villeneuve

Indefinitely blocked

Creating attack pages against other Wikimedia editors is not what Outreach Wiki is for, and I have blocked you indefinitely. --Rschen7754 13:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754 : I don't think that this essay is an attack. As I have written on the talk page, I wanted to help new contributors to insert the French Wikipedia. I'm surprised that you made a strong opinion like this without talking to me in the first place. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding ? You name a lot of editors saying awfull things, how does it help someone to "insert the French Wikipedia" ? The only purpose of this page was to attack the users, that's it ! --Scoopfinder (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. There was absolutely no attacks or awfull things on this essay. But we cannot judge this anymore, thanks to you. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the intent of the page, you created a page on a separate Wiki in order to discuss things that have no relevance to the project on which it is hosted. The fact that you fully-protected the page shows that you did not want others to touch it besides yourself, which gave many of us the impression that it was an attack page. I also have viewed the material on both pages and think that it crossed the line, so I am fully supportive of Rschen's block. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to let you know that i have removed your administrator rights because of the recent incident. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ktr101 : "you created a page on a separate Wiki in order to discuss things that have no relevance to the project on which it is hosted" : I think it's not true. Like I said on the talk page, I give a lot of formations and workshops since 7 years now and the goal of my essay was to help new users to understand some aspects and users of the French Wikipedia. I think that fits the Outreach wiki objectives
"which gave many of us the impression that it was an attack page." : I like that you use the word "impression". As I also said on the talk page about the protection, it was to avoid flame war and slips about the contents.
I repeat : If you read the page, you can see that there's no attack, only points of view about the behavior of known contributors of French Wikipedia. If you think it is inappropriate to do so, so fine, but argue in this way and please, judge the content and not the feelings of peoples talking about it.

User:Steinsplitter : Like I said, I sincerely think that my essay can help contributors to integrate the French Wikipedia. I understand that peoples can have strong feelings about what it is said (and it was because of that that I protected the page), but the actions of these peoples on French Wikipedia causes strongs feelings too and I thought it was relevant to underline this.

I'm open to discuss this calmly with you and I am clearly aware that it is possible that I have made a mistake like you said, but for now, I still thing that this page was relevant. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My concern is more that it is out of the scope of this project. While there are reasons to host things here, I cannot recall any page which talks about another project on this site. Regardless, I see no reason for a block here and have unblocked you, although I don't think fully protecting the page was the right thing to do, since it sends the wrong message to people. I'll have a talk with others over the coming days about your administrator status, as I do think now would be a good time to start codifying procedures on desysops. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@procedures on desysops: using common sense should be enough. I don't speak fr, but i trust Rschen (former crat here and steward), therefore i desysopped. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.
I'll not do anything before I'm sure that I understand your perception about the scope of the project, what we must do or not here and when and why we must or not protect a page.
Maybe you have some links about these subjects that can help me to clarify this ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully understand you, but I think you're asking about the times when we fully protect pages. In that instance, I have really only seen people protect pages if they're high visibility or have been vandalized in the past. Very rarely do we pre-emptively protect pages, since that really doesn't help anyone, especially if its fully protected. Usually, full protection is warranted on templates and the main page, and semi-protection on pages that could be controversial, but won't break things if they're vandalized. I am not however aware of any rules that we have published on this subject, as people generally copy things over from other projects and use common sense. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my bad English. I'm from the frenchiest part of Québec and I write English as a d...
"I am not however aware of any rules that we have published on this subject, as people generally copy things over from other projects and use common sense." : It is also my vision of that. Imho, as I have written on the talk page of Rschen7754, I think that everybody overreact here. I'll go calm down elsewhere for the rest of the day and I'll come back here tomorrow to see if we can exchange rationnaly about this situation. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not an overreaction. That's what I would have done on any of the wikis I'm an admin on, except the desysop would have to go to the community or ArbCom as those are content wikis. But since we made the administrator rights easy to get here, it should be easy to remove them here, too. Some things are so far beyond the pale of acceptability that there is no excuse for this. --Rschen7754 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm visiting your user page and I see that your are an English native speaker and that you seem to know some Spanish. If you can read or speak French, maybe you can say it on your userpage ? If not, how can you be so sure that my essay was so clearly wrong ("far beyond the pale of acceptability") ?
I'm contributing on all wikis host by the WMF with an SUL account under my true name, so I must, more than a lot of others contributors, endorse all the public words I write on these wikis. So please, believe me that I want to understand why I can't write an essay to help new editors to join the French Wikipedia community ? Is'nt the scope of Outreach to help people to join the meta:Wikimedia movement ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Google Translate. And well, you seem to be leaving out the part where you made some derogatory comments about specific frwiki editors. Just because you endorse what you say doesn't give you the right to make personal attacks. --Rschen7754 02:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop to say "attacks" ? I don't agree with that. I think that "classifications" is a more appropriate word.
And you know, Google Translate isn't really the Babel fish. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So, just because you don't think that it was an attack, means that it wasn't? As a m:steward, handling affairs on wikis where I don't speak the language, I have enough experience with using Google Translate and can tell when something is an attack, especially considering that French is one of the languages that it handles better. Please see w:en:WP:POLEMIC for an explanation of why it is an attack. --Rschen7754 04:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand now what do you mean. It was that kind of link (POLEMIC) I was talking about when I was saying "Maybe you have some links about these subjects that can help me to clarify this ?".
I still believe that "attack" isn't the best word to qualify this, but I can understand that it can be perceive like that.
Do you think it is possible to put back the essay without the name list ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would personaly offer an english translation of any part if necessary. But it looks like Rs got the most of the page and it was clearly a page to attack the fr.WP community AND some users. Even without the userlist, the page is an attack against some unnamed people of fr.wp & fr.wp itselfs. --Scoopfinder (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The meta:immediatism and the meta:eventualism ways of editing wikis aren't exclusive to fr.wp. Explain these editing philosophies to new editors seems to me very helpful for them. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is still not appropriate. From the main page of this wiki: "Outreach wiki serves as a home for several outreach and collaboration initiatives." What you are proposing seems more like advocacy against certain viewpoints on frwiki, which is more divisive than collaborative. --Rschen7754 13:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to what Rschen wrote above, the site is incredibly low-drama, and the hosting of an essay that is better suited for the French Wikipedia, goes against what this project is about. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I disagree with your straight visions of the Outreach scopes, but I'm alone here, so I concede.
Like Kevin Rutherford said, the essay must be published elsewere. Can you please send me a copy by email ? --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm incredibly leery of sending you any versions of the pages, because I don't know where they'll end up. Lacking any knowledge of French, I have no idea what has even been going on on that website, so I really don't want to add fuel to the flames at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I can understand this feeling of yours, but the essay have circulated by email in a kind of Streisand effect. I already have a copy of it, but I don't know if this copy hasn't been altered or if it is the last one before the deletion. Also, I don't have the talk page.
If you want, I can swear to you and/or send an OTRS email to officialise that I'll not publish it on any of the wikis hosted by the WMF. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You were the only page editor before it was deleted, if that's what you're asking. An OTRS e-mail wouldn't help much as it is only used to verify things, not act as the location for legally binding statements. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Exchange with Lomita about the deleted essay

(copied from User talk:Rschen7754 talk page)

It's impossible to say Wikilove for this page ! --Lomita (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also impossible "to say Wikilove" for this essay of yours and nobody have deleted it nor have blocked or desysopped you for it. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Simon Villeneuve - Bonsoir, la seule différence entre vous et moi, est que j'ai eu la décence et la politesse de ne citer personne --Lomita (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(translation) : Lomita : Good evening. The only difference between you and me is that I had the decency and the courtesy to cite no one.

User:Lomita : You specifically targuet students and teachers in it, tarring us all with the same brush. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. : I copy this part of the discussion on my UserTalk page. If you want to continue it, I think it is a better place to do so.

I have gone ahead and fully protected this page for a week in lieu of blocking people, as we're all competent editors and I don't see the need to block others from the site. Everyone, please stop feuding on this page and others, as this is not at all relevant to the mission of the Outreach site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)