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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Teofilo
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Dalton
You're taking about a whistleblower policy[1], essentially. Normally, they
are restricted to reporting violations off the law, rather than internal
policies (see the Foundation's policy[2] 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
abuse, though.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
2. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy
On Nov 3, 2012 11:01 AM, "Teofilo" <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Alhen
In reply to this post by Teofilo
*1.* We have no arbcom on es.wiki.
*2. *I was choosen as a checkuser by our last arbcom
*3.* Now, the community created a different process to appoint
checkusers(After more than 3 years or so).

Teofilo, if the community has decided to go without an arbcom and leave
things like the way they are, I suggest you accept it. Asking the removal
of checkuser rights without community support is indeed a bad move.

Alhen

@alhen_
alhen at wikipedia, wikihow, wikispaces, and most places.
Promotor de Wikimedia Bolivia
00-591-79592235




2012/11/3 Teofilo <[hidden email]>

> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
In reply to this post by Teofilo
I have no knowledge of the dispute on French Wikipedia, but I've just read
the thread on Meta, and frankly I agree that your making and insisting on
your request seems to have been inappropriate.  We had a similar situation
recently involving English Wikipedia -- in which an editor went to Meta to
request that one of our checkusers have his rights remove because his
appointment was supposedly invalid, but he had never raised his concern on
English first and it turned out to be meritless -- and we did not take
kindly to that action at all.

As a matter of common sense, it seems more than reasonable that if a wiki
is transitioning from one method of appointing CUs to another, this doesn't
mean that all CUs appointed under the old method are invalid.  The
conclusion would be that French should be left with no CUs at all for an
indefinite period, which if French WP is subject to anything remotely
appoaching the level of spamming and disruption that hits English
sometimes, is unlikely to be a viable option.

The more intriguing question to me, as an editor who has been a member of
the English WP ArbCom for five years, is why French has decided to no
longer have an ArbCom.  Or is it just that there is disagreement about
the membership or method of picking the ArbCom?  (The Meta discussion is
not completely clear.)

Newyorkbrad



On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Teofilo <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Yaroslav M. Blanter
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 10:55:42 -0400, Newyorkbrad wrote:

> The more intriguing question to me, as an editor who has been a
> member of
> the English WP ArbCom for five years, is why French has decided to no
> longer have an ArbCom.  Or is it just that there is disagreement
> about
> the membership or method of picking the ArbCom?  (The Meta discussion
> is
> not completely clear.)
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
>

If I understood it correctly, they just failed to elect one. I am not
even sure that they actually decided to abolish the Arbcom. I did not go
into details and may be wrong though.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Teofilo
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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l