Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. It is disruptive to propose the removal of actual checkusers whilst there is no procedure in place to replace them on the spot, leaving an obvious and unsuitable vacuum. It is disruptive to request the immediate removal of all actual checkusers whilst not having a serious reason to do so (such as an abusive use from ALL checkusers of their tools). It is inappropriate to request such removal without first making a replacement proposition to avoid the vaccum situation. it is inappropriate to request such removal without first discussing it with the French community to get an agreement. Freedom of speech does not mean warranty the right to say anything, anywhere to anyone. There are always social norms. Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle, just as respecting basic social rules of your community also is. IAR always come with a risk. F. On 11/3/12 12:01 PM, Teofilo wrote: A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a block with consequences in the case I would perform any similar move, a move similar with what I did which they interpret as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (1). As the wording is totally vague (similar move) this deprives me of the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech on community matters is being denied. What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia switching from the wiki with arbcom to the wiki without arbcom status (2). So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy, which provides different access procedures according to whether the wiki is with or without arbcom (3). Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ? Would it be possible to have some kind of meta-arbcom that would be a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental principles, such as freedom of speech ? References: (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilodiff=84877524oldid=84615519 (2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissionsoldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29 (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a very short majority (52.4%)] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta
A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a block with consequences in the case I would perform any similar move, a move similar with what I did which they interpret as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (1). As the wording is totally vague (similar move) this deprives me of the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech on community matters is being denied. What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia switching from the wiki with arbcom to the wiki without arbcom status (2). So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy, which provides different access procedures according to whether the wiki is with or without arbcom (3). Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ? Would it be possible to have some kind of meta-arbcom that would be a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental principles, such as freedom of speech ? References: (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilodiff=84877524oldid=84615519 (2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissionsoldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29 (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a very short majority (52.4%)] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta
You're taking about a whistleblower policy[1], essentially. Normally, they are restricted to reporting violations off the law, rather than internal policies (see the Foundation's policy[2] for example) but there is no reason we couldn't have a broader one. It would need to be quite limited in scope to avoid it being too open to abuse, though. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower 2. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy On Nov 3, 2012 11:01 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a block with consequences in the case I would perform any similar move, a move similar with what I did which they interpret as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (1). As the wording is totally vague (similar move) this deprives me of the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech on community matters is being denied. What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia switching from the wiki with arbcom to the wiki without arbcom status (2). So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy, which provides different access procedures according to whether the wiki is with or without arbcom (3). Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ? Would it be possible to have some kind of meta-arbcom that would be a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental principles, such as freedom of speech ? References: (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilodiff=84877524oldid=84615519 (2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissionsoldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29 (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a very short majority (52.4%)] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 10:55:42 -0400, Newyorkbrad wrote: The more intriguing question to me, as an editor who has been a member of the English WP ArbCom for five years, is why French has decided to no longer have an ArbCom. Or is it just that there is disagreement about the membership or method of picking the ArbCom? (The Meta discussion is not completely clear.) Newyorkbrad If I understood it correctly, they just failed to elect one. I am not even sure that they actually decided to abolish the Arbcom. I did not go into details and may be wrong though. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta
I have no knowledge of the dispute on French Wikipedia, but I've just read the thread on Meta, and frankly I agree that your making and insisting on your request seems to have been inappropriate. We had a similar situation recently involving English Wikipedia -- in which an editor went to Meta to request that one of our checkusers have his rights remove because his appointment was supposedly invalid, but he had never raised his concern on English first and it turned out to be meritless -- and we did not take kindly to that action at all. As a matter of common sense, it seems more than reasonable that if a wiki is transitioning from one method of appointing CUs to another, this doesn't mean that all CUs appointed under the old method are invalid. The conclusion would be that French should be left with no CUs at all for an indefinite period, which if French WP is subject to anything remotely appoaching the level of spamming and disruption that hits English sometimes, is unlikely to be a viable option. The more intriguing question to me, as an editor who has been a member of the English WP ArbCom for five years, is why French has decided to no longer have an ArbCom. Or is it just that there is disagreement about the membership or method of picking the ArbCom? (The Meta discussion is not completely clear.) Newyorkbrad On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a block with consequences in the case I would perform any similar move, a move similar with what I did which they interpret as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (1). As the wording is totally vague (similar move) this deprives me of the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech on community matters is being denied. What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia switching from the wiki with arbcom to the wiki without arbcom status (2). So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy, which provides different access procedures according to whether the wiki is with or without arbcom (3). Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ? Would it be possible to have some kind of meta-arbcom that would be a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental principles, such as freedom of speech ? References: (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilodiff=84877524oldid=84615519 (2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissionsoldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29 (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a very short majority (52.4%)] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
