Requests for comment/admin tools' abuse in French Wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. speedily closed per Requests for comment/Policy#Initiating an RFC, nominator registered just 2 hours ago and has 2 global edits. Duplicate of Requests for comment/administrator tools' abuse in french wikipedia. --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


JohnNewton8, an administrator on french wikipedia, abused of his tools and rights. Here he blocked an IP for "personnal attack". This "personnal attack" was mentionning that 2 wikipedian were known for their usual transphobic behaviours, positions, and words. In facts it's not a personnal attack but a categorisation of what they say, how they act. We need to be able and free to point out the problematics contents and behaviours without beeing censored. Blocking someone for describing a discriminant behaviour is censorship and open the door to more discriminations, plus it protects haters and discriminant people. First JohnNewton8 need to give evidence and argumentation that it was a "personnal attack" (even if it's not). Second we need to stop this epidemic of transphobia on french wikipedia (see here for other exemples) Third we had to take action JohnNewton8 for his abuse of power. What he is doing isn't in the right path of the UCoC. It's not the first case of covering transphobia from the french wikipedia community. Look at this and this for more informations.

Where it happens JN8 continue to abuse his power here

Regards EnbyWarrior (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 clear abuse of his tools. He didn't justify the supposed break of WpPAP by the IP, whom didn't break it .Give give at least a warning, why not something more impactant193.52.40.65 08:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johannnes89: Hi , I was wondering if the "have at least 250 edits globally" included wiktionnary and wikipedia? If yes I can ask to a friend of mine to open the RFC, or maybe I can do those modifications on wikipedia french and wiktionnary fr?. Thanks for answer. Regards EnbyWarrior (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EnbyWarrior to initiate an RFC an account must be at least three months old + have at least 250 edits globally (on all WMF sites), Wiktionary and Wikipedia are WMF sites as well. But even if you did some edits, your account would be too young. Your dispute should be handled locally anyway [1] --Johannnes89 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johannnes89: Ok thanks for answer. I don't trust french wikipedian to handle with justice problems concerning trans/enby people, I think they are biased and abusing of their tools so the problem need to be covered by wikimedians right? EnbyWarrior (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such problems should always be handled by local instances first (fr:Wikipédia:Administrateur/Problème, fr:Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage...). Global RfC can be used if all of those local instances failed, but only if the requirements of Requests for comment/Policy#Initiating an RFC are met (which by the way also requires notification of the users / communities involved). --Johannnes89 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. As I expected, the local instances failed to it job. The fr:Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage is dead, unfonctionnal so I can't rely on it. I will wait and edit 250 times to open this RFC so. EnbyWarrior (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] the local instances does'nt failed, this user harrass me and make R3R in the page i create infrwp, just ignore the request Felix felines (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, not having been notified, I discover this request after its closure.

  • On the merits: I did block this IP for one week for making defamatory allegations against two contributors of fr-WP ("je sais par bouche à oreille que vous (UserX et UserY) tenez régulièrement des positions transphobes sur le sujet" [2]). This was a flagrant breach of WP:NOPA and WP:AGF and moreover a probably criminally reprehensible remark.
  • On the compliance with the procedure: the blockage follows a request for administrator attention on fr-WP written by a third party [3]. This request was obviously public, and my decision could have been challenged by any of the ~150 sysop of fr-WP. Besides, the IP could have asked for an unblockage, but he/she did not. No recourse to local instances -- which are fully functionnal -- has been implemented.

This request is therefore totally unfounded. JohnNewton8 (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]