[Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta

[Florence Devouard]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

It is disruptive to propose the removal of actual checkusers whilst 
there is no procedure in place to replace them on the spot, leaving an 
obvious and unsuitable vacuum.

It is disruptive to request the immediate removal of all actual 
checkusers whilst not having a serious reason to do so (such as an 
abusive use from ALL checkusers of their tools).

It is inappropriate to request such removal without first making a 
replacement proposition to avoid the vaccum situation.

it is inappropriate to request such removal without first discussing it 
with the French community to get an agreement.

Freedom of speech does not mean warranty the right to say anything, 
anywhere to anyone. There are always social norms. Freedom of speech is 
a fundamental principle, just as respecting basic social rules of your 
community also is. IAR always come with a risk.

F.



On 11/3/12 12:01 PM, Teofilo 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 ?
>
> References:
>
> (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilo&diff=84877524&oldid=84615519
> (2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29
> (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser
>
> See also:
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser
>   [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
>