Brian a écrit:
First off, my credentials:
[[en:User:Brian0918]]
Administrator
11,754 edits
Short version: There is a huge battle going on in which VFDers on WP,
WS, and Commons are pushing user-compiled lists from one project to
another. In each case, they are saying the lists belong on one of the
other 3 projects. Almost nobody is saying that these lists don't
belong anywhere, but nobody can decide on where they belong. It also
doesn't help that nobody on one project accepts the outcome of
another project's VFD (an outcome which may have said to transwiki to
this project) as a reason to keep it on this project.
This is an important point you raise.
From another perspective, we also increasingly are confronted to
situation of editors jumping from one project to another, or one
language to another, while they are banned on the first and not (yet
?) on the second. Some editors will then reject civil rights to this
editor (such as forbidding to an editor banned on the english
wikipedia to vote on meta), while others consider he should be given a
chance as blocking rules are different from one project to the next
(for example, the german wikipedia seems to block or unsysop editors
much more easily than the french wikipedia). There is an ongoing issue
right now with an editor of the dutch and english projects.
In short, we increasingly are confronted to this inter-projects
relationships, relying in local rules... as many issues fall in a sort
of grey area. What you report kinda of fall in the same area.
Do you think a sort of international committee, made of editors from
different projects and different languages could make these decisions
on behalf of all editors in these sorts of situation, per request of
local communities. Right now, it mostly ends up by request to Jimbo,
Angela and myself... and I'd say it is not the best solution. The only
good point of this solution is that usually our decision is well
accepted by (relieved) editors.
So, it would be interesting to see whether a sort of international
court would be acceptable to solve these kind of issues.
If so, how could it be organised ? How would it get members ?
(nomination, elections...) On which rules would it work ?
There is a big difference between the question of where an article
belongs, and project shopping problem editors. When the question
involves the location of an article we still need to start with a
presumption of good faith, and a hope that a consensus can be found for
the solution.
With problem editors the good faith has already been put into question.
I've always felt that each project should have the maximum possible
autonomy within a limited set of broadly applicable rules.. For these
the international committee (or court) could work, but we need to be
clear about its role and when its use ould be relevant. It would
certainly help with those who, after being banished from one project go
do their mayhem on another. It could also act as an appeal tribunal for
small wikis, where a dominant leader goes too far in the exercise of his
sweeping powers. If he bans someone for more than 24 hours he should
notify that person of his right of appeal.
Ec