>If I overlooked anyone in my appointments, don't be insulted and don't
>hesitate to ask about it.  It was unintentional.  I tried to appoint
>everyone who volunteered.  Anyone who is left over and would still
>like to be appointed will be appointed to mediation.

 

Yes. I volunteered for mediation over conflict involving non-english speaking people, as I think my lack in english culture may help me understand the seeds of some conflicts :-)

(I thank those who understand that I do not understand everything, whatever my capacity to handle humour :-))

 

In particular should there be any issues with french users of course, such as "the one who must not be named" (because he requested to have his name and contributions disappear on all wikipedias, english included), or our famous chaterring box, Papotages (who is banned on fr, but not banned on en:) or perhaps JacquesD (who is perhaps a user ban on en:, but not on fr: )

:-)

 

 

For information, I recently exchanged many private emails with a user called HeKeIsDa (and likely Sayeya as well), over posting little understandable articles on meta and fr: (and I saw recently on en: as well). The user was also trying to set up a new wikipedia on meta itself.

 

Though this was not a conflict really, it could have become one. If the user had insisted in going on setting his wikipedia on meta, he could have ended banned :-)

I am half seriously mentionning this, because a spanish person told me privately that if there was discussion over banning this user on meta, likely no spanish user would oppose the ban => that means he considered it an option. The user is a problematic user on the es: wikipedia. But no banned as spanish people wish to solve the issues they have with HeKeIsDa amicably. He is however, banned on the spanish encyclopedia fork.

 

HeKeIsDa and I do not share a common language (to say the least :-)), so that was a bit tough.

Actually, it is not even obvious he shares a language with spanish people.

 

I was embarassed because HeKeIsDa was only communicating through private emails, and I felt I should not take a decision alone on the topic. I felt I had no right to do so alone.

For this reason, I posted copies of some of his mails on meta so that other people could give me their opinion over those. I also found myself embarassed to do so, as these were private mails, but felt any decision over this should be public. I blanked the content for less visibility. I also talked about this to other people by private mail, on fr and on irc. Several people volunteered to bring very valuable information to help understand what it was all about, and some indicated their unfavorable opinion over the creation of the wild spanish wikipedia.
Practically, it was a sort of mediation commitee, where some users were providing input in a semi-public semi-private way (but not on meta itself, so these discussions were *invisible* to HeKeIsDa himself, while most discussions between HeKeIsDa and I were private as well).

 

However, no public opinion but mine was offered to him on meta itself.

Since no one made any comment, I boldly deleted HeKeIsDa articles

(Incidentally, I noticed that recently I am getting perhaps too bold in deletion on meta these days, if some people think I am being so, please do tell me).

 

I tried to explain HeKeIsDa the decision. Fortunately, he has stopped insisting, and limits himself to posting google-translated articles on fr: now (this will also have to be adressed...).

 

If HeKeIsDa had decided to go on in creating a wild spanish wikipedia on meta, I would have routinely deleted his articles (and talked to him again), in practice considering his posting vandalism, as he was told not to do it.

Though this would not have been a hard ban pronounced by Jimbo, it would have in effect sort of a ban that would have decided somehow on HeKeIsDa, for not respecting the goal of meta.

 

My point is : I feel like I did not do anything alone. I asked people opinion, and either they were neutral, or they were unfavorable to that new wikipedia.

But to HeKeIsDa or any external viewer, it certainly does look as if I took the decision myself alone. It does look as if I deleted his stuff on my own opinion. And if he post again articles, and I delete them again, it will look like I act as an arbitration commitee, and decided to out the guy myself.

 

Did I do well ? I think I did. In effect, I think I was honest and fair, and I do not think I offended the guy.

 

The important points I will keep from that case, are

: how will people feel if they find me routinely deleting articles with seemingly no discussion ?

: what will happen if someone feel like saying I abused my sysop powers in deleting unilaterally HeKeIsDa articles :-) ?
: how could I support my case given that a good deal of the discussion took place on volatile support (irc) ?