Talk:Open letter of support for Les sans pagEs

Links and details[edit]

Hi,

For those of us who aren't familiar with what's been going on, could we get some details or links where these problematic discussions have been happening? The letter says, "...continual bad-faith argument on the project’s talk page, on the administrators’ bulletin and on Le Bistro and a formal RFC" - could those be turned into links? I believe the first two are Discussion_Projet:Les_sans_pagEs and Interrogation_sur_LSP but I'm relying on Firefox Translate.

I am also curious why the letter authors chose a letter on Meta-Wiki versus well, dealing with harassment through the normal wiki processes. I'm not trying to imply or say it was the wrong choice, my curiosity is mostly because the letter invokes the UCoC, which (in the draft revised enforcement guidelines) promotes resolving issues "...at the most local level possible".

Finally, is signing the letter open to anyone or just those who are "representatives of affiliates and organisations."?

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here you go:

Affaire_LSP_:_quelles_suites_?

Lettre_ouverte_de_soutien_aux_sans_pagEs,

there is more, but that was enough for me.--Slowking4 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Wikipédia:Appel à commentaires/Sujets soulevés par la professionnalisation de l'association homonyme du projet LSP is the RfC, I think. But the talk page is quite long, and, like Legoktm and most people here, I am reading everything through machine translation, so it is difficult to assess the letter without any specific indication of which discussions are beyond the pale.

More broadly, the French Wikipedia has over 150 administrators and an arbitration committee; this does not seem like a Croatian Wikipedia situation. If there are particular editors who are behaving badly, I would expect local processes to address them. Is there something about this situation that would suggest that one of our largest and most active projects cannot govern itself?

Finally, the UCoC has "Assume good faith" as one of its points. I have trouble reconciling AGF with statements like: "We are also concerned that some of these arguments appear to be made by editors who do not see the value in making the French Wikipedia more representative of the world, rather than just the accomplishments of a minority of its citizens, and who do not recognise that Les sans pagEs, like all affiliates working to create content, do so in line with guidelines on Notability and Reliable sources." Emufarmers (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information fr-wp has no active arbitrators at the moment, see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Comit%C3%A9_d%27arbitrage. Nattes à chat (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thank you for mentioning that. I do now remember that the French ArbCom became non-functional when nobody was elected a few years ago, but I had assumed that things had improved since then. Does the inability of the community to select anyone for this role (I see another election is about to start with no candidates, if I'm reading it right) reflect a heavily polarized community, unreasonably high support thresholds for the election, a lack of consensus about whether an ArbCom is necessary, or something else?

Is there currently a governance vacuum on the French Wikipedia, or are other processes working adequately?

And, to bring us back to the letter, if there were an active ArbCom, would the conduct that's described here have been a suitable case for them to hear?

(@Nattes à chat or anyone else with insight into the matter.) Emufarmers (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(via Firefox translate) "Otherwise, I'm not misogynistic, many of my friends are women. I'm not a murderer either, many of my friends are alive." "And what about the Black Wikipedia project, based on skin color... Can we imagine a wikipedia whitening project?" Yikes.

To be fair, I am a total outsider when it comes to the French Wikipedia and could be entirely missing some nuance or history (please, correct me), but when reading these discussions, I'm very concerned that I don't see people calling people out for their inappropriate comments, which seems like a necessary precursor to having good local governance that could've resolved this. Legoktm (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]