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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
