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 ha
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
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
*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
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 scop
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 de
