I encourage editors to consider the three articles I have been restoring. These three have any right to be on meta. The content of these is uncontroversial. It could be edited by anyone, and I am ready to put any effort necessary in those to modify them, as I indicated to Mav, provided that they are not deleted again, even when I recreate them under my name. I do not feel ready to put some work on articles that are being deleted immediately after. I fear that instant deletion of these articles as now practiced, under any editors name, even trusted ones, is likely to slow down discussion and evolution of meta.

It is not a good idea that any topic touched by a banned user, becomes de facto a topic which must not be mentionned any more.

I entirely recognise and accept the decision over the banning of 142. But the fact is that unfortunately, 142 is writing on many topics, two of them being my favorite topics.

One is meta and cooperation between people, in particular in the intent of having cooperation between internationals and english users. I am also interested by in everything that turns around people management and systems. And of course banning, because it may not have escaped some of you, the french wikipedia had to ban someone about 2 weeks ago, our editors had to take the decision to ban someone with no set rules or recommandations; and then we had to fight (with the great help of Tim Starling) to have this ban inforced one way or another. So, naturally, all these topics, about how someone is excluded from a place (and whether it a community decision, or a single person dream) interest me. Unfortunately, 142 is also meddling in these topics as well.

The second is ecology, because I am an agronom, and it is just my job ! And not so many people are writting on agricultural and ecological sciences topics, neither on fr nor on en. Unfortunately 142 is also interested in ecology. So I keep meeting him or rather his articles on the topic. Participation on ecological matters is sometimes biaised, but it is an interesting approach, and participate to the global scheme. Given that rather few people participate on these topics, I 1)feel it bad that good articles are just deleted because of their author, just to leave instead a hole and 2)feel that I am not gonna stop participate on my favorite topics just because a banned user has put a black hand on it.

If this goes to this, preventing regular users to edit topics because of their smell, where is Wikipedia going ?

The second point is this one : Meta is for everyone who is interested in wikipedia wide building. It is not only the english meta, it is also everyone meta. And all those involved in the matter, should feel concerned about how meta is growing, and in particular how rules are currently being made on meta. The rules should not be decided by Mav, the rules should not be automatically the english rules that suit him. The rules should be done by everyone making meta, by the community. And perhaps, these rules will be slightly different from en.

When I try to discuss this with you Mav, all I get is "this is the way it is and this is final" or rather "End of story".

Just like the english main page, not editable by most users. Just like the wikimedia guide, just you editing it, and calling other attempts forks.

Mav, I recognise you are doing a great job, and you have been hurt by that user, and that 142 is indeed banned;

what I have troubles accepting is that you decide the way we should enforce the ban, you remove my comments on talk pages, you delete articles I created under my name, assuming if need there is their authorship, and finally, that you try to break the only opposition to your decisions on meta by calling for unsysoping people.

So Mav, there is a point there. I explained in length on meta why I was restoring these three articles. And Dori made good comments about that. You just do not consider my explanations. I also remind you that other users on en are also doing this, and that it has suggested that in case this is done, the articles should be recreated under another person name. Which I did (and I repeat I am ready to change the content as well). So how what I do is different from what other people do ? And why should I be unsysoped, when other people are not for precisely the same actions than me? And why would you not be unsysop yourself for deleting my articles without other people opinion ?

In any place, there should be balance. The fact you delete them is fine with me; the fact you refuse to accept that other people have different opinions on how meta should work is just plain not wiki.

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree