[Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta
thomas.dalton at gmail.com
Sat Nov 3 12:31:49 UTC 2012
You're taking about a whistleblower policy, essentially. Normally, they
are restricted to reporting violations off the law, rather than internal
policies (see the Foundation's policy 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
On Nov 3, 2012 11:01 AM, "Teofilo" <teofilowiki at 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 ?
> (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser
> See also:
> [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a
> very short majority (52.4%)]
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
More information about the Wikimedia-l