[Foundation-l] Re: Transwiki wars, precedence, and the fate of user-compiled lists

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

> 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