Int21h

Vous avez tout fait pour vous faire passer pour banni alors acceptez d'être traiter comme tel. Assumez votre propre choix avant de demander qu'un admin démissionne soit-disant pour assumer les siens avec votre petit jugement étriqué de troll. Lacrymocéphale (d) 9 avril 2013 à 01:37 (CEST)

J'ai tout fait? Vous interprètent mal. Voir «was» en anglais. Int21h (d) 9 avril 2013 à 04:16 (CEST)

French have been considering you as a blocked account on English Wikipedia because you have choose to keep a "blocked account" warning on you user discussion page even if you're not. And then, you have accused the ones who have believed in your lie. You like misinformation but don't like when it's trust. "You shouldn't have believe in my lie" is an act of trolling. You have the rights to exprim your ideas. But you're not trust as a liar, so you're judged as someone who don't look for truth but only to annoy people. You got the image that you build: a troll. — Lacrymocéphale (d) 9 avril 2013 à 20:30 (CEST)

There could effectively be a misinterpretation of "was blocked" been read as "has been blocked (and, so, still blocked). Misjudgement helps by your aggressiveness, not welcomed at a highly emotional moment. My bad, their bad.

By the way, you shouldn't have created a new threat on this subject as it was already in treatment 2 sections above. You have use his discussion page instead of Wikipédia:Contestation du statut d'administrateur/Remi Mathis. You could have, at least, participate to the existing thread. The Term of Use as argument, the sensation that you were grandstanding, the personal attack, many details could have lead to considering you as a kind of troll.

The debate about "Could a public figure be a Wikipédia sysop?" and seems to be difficult to set up. Passing the "we'll have do the same as you" period, maybe we could start a "do we have to let this able to happen again?" area during which the question will be more acceptable (as a question ; not as an "quit!" instruction). Personally, I ask it to my self but can't answer yet. If all admins have to operate through anonymous proxies to not being trackable down to have an intelligence agency knocking at their door for the deletion of an article they never heard about and with the choice between jail or degradation, what is the future of Wikipedia?… I see both positive and negative possibilities. — Lacrymocéphale (d) 9 avril 2013 à 21:20 (CEST)

I think the main issue here is you want be to be a "troll" and a liar, so you may dismiss my arguments without addressing the merits. Good luck with that.

As for the dispute resolution discussion, thank you for the link I did not know about it. It does not, however, prevent me from doing what I did, so in that respect I assert you are wrong. It is a better place, not the only place where discussion at all other places in forbidden. I would be happy the discuss why, if you choose. (We could just open a conversation on a policy board about, so everyone could benefit from the discussion.)

As for grandstanding, Google Books shows the following quote:

A pitcher is said to grandstand when he ignores his team mates and seeks applause from the bleachers.

I am not ignoring my teammates as I seek applause. Your use of this term is incorrect in my opinion. To compare a demand that an administrator resign for clear abusing his administrative responsibilities does not seek applause at the expense of my teammates. Again, I think the root of this problem is that you want me to be grandstanding, or want me to be doing anything which you can criticize me for, so you can ignore my argument's merits.

The term "personal attack" is so ambiguous I cannot say anything about it. It is so ambiguous anything and nothing could be a personal attack, depending on how you define or interpret it. It is like saying someone is "doing evil"; its ambiguous enough to, say, burn innocent people alive in the town square while everyone watches. But of course people would never do that, that's a little far fetched. This is France we are talking about here.

I do not understand the question "Could a public figure be a Wikipédia sysop?" Of course they can. Your correct a question to be asking is "do we have to let this able to happen again?", but unfortunately not the only question. I believe the "quit!" instruction, if I interpret you correctly, is also warranted.

Well, as an American, I think the answer is clear. But it has little to do with Wikipedia or the United States. Until such a time as the French can, alternatively, either not violate their obligations to Wikipedia by feigning cowardice (if the French Interior Ministry was wrong to do what it did), not violate their obligations to Wikipedia by subjecting themselves to French law in the first place (if the French Interior Ministry did nothing unlawful or even wrong in carrying out their duties), or preferably obtaining what is a Constitutional right in speech and writing comparable to here in California. (It is obvious French law is not consistent with the First Amendment according to the most recent US Supreme Court cases.) Int21h (d) 11 avril 2013 à 03:47 (CEST)

How is the French law not consistent with the American First Amendment of the Constitution ? (I'm curious, just want to know your opinion) — Sir Henry (Doctor Livingstone ?) 11 avril 2013 à 08:26 (CEST)

The "New York Times v. United States" Supreme Court case of 1971 is the most obvious.

As I understand, not much is different in law. Just as Soviet law was pretty much consistent with the American First Amendment, as I understand. My understanding is that the difference is effective rights, which is to say one's ability to rely on that freedom.

It turns out this is quite difficult against the backdrop of the omnipresent and omnipotent state security apparatus. It is not as if America has consistently had a better situation, as if the US will not try and deny habeas corpus to its own citizens for years and years on the weakest of legal arguments... It is just that we are "hyper-aware", and stare decisis (common law) combined with statutory reporters of decisions (case law) has made such protection much better known and reliable. As I understand it, in France, just because someone else had their case resolved according to some legal theory of interpretation does not mean you will, not that you would ever have known. And just because some law is ambiguous as all hell, leading to wildly different possible interpretations, I have never heard of a French law being declared unenforceable because it was too ambiguous. (Not as if its easy in America, but the possibility keeps the legislature somewhat more conscious of the fact, and any ambiguities are widely exploited here so I assume they are in France too.) I have tried for a while now to access French case law, unreliable as though it may be, to no success, as apparently it is closely guarded commercial property. The few French laws I have seen have been pretty ambiguous, likely relying on regulations (of which I have the least clue) to give substantive details. The few court decisions I read left me rather contemptuous of the French courts, but not nearly so as after reading German court decisions. This is all somewhat complicated by the fact the police chief (interior minister) always seems to magically become the leader of the country, though the mayor of Paris seems to jump in there every decade or so, and this is not uncommon even in America (Attorney-General Bill Clinton, Attorney-General Jerry Brown) or as predictable as Austria.

My understanding is that you are almost guaranteed to spend the entire trial in prison, as pre-trial detention accounts for like 30% of the prison population or something. The fact that the decider of the case (judge in France) is golfing buddies with your accuser (prosecution), instead of random people (a jury), doesn't help matters at all. So really its a comprehensive, effective, lack of rights. And this guy knew it too. But he already knew before he signed up, so there is no excuse. Int21h (d) 27 mai 2013 à 10:39 (CEST)

French and United States of America laws are two differents laws but they apply both to this case. Simultaneously. So if the French law says "it's illegal", then it's illegal in all versions, if it's a french contributor who writed it. And if the USA law say "it's illegal", so it's illegal in which version you writed it.--SammyDay (d) 11 avril 2013 à 13:36 (CEST)

Non, car il est illégal en France n'excuse pas les actions sur Wikipedia. Parce qu'elle est illégale en Libye n'excuse pas les actions sur Wikipedia. Chacun ne devrait pas être à la générosité (merci?) de toutes les lois du monde. Int21h (d) 27 mai 2013 à 11:11 (CEST)

« that an administrator resign for clear abusing his administrative responsibilities »

The difficulty, here, is letting you saying that "doing what you are forced to" is "abusing".

Lacrymocéphale (d) 11 avril 2013 à 23:26 (CEST)

But, justice should be blind. — Lacrymocéphale (d) 12 avril 2013 à 09:44 (CEST)

Wikipédia:Contestation du statut d'administrateur/Remi Mathis‎

Les règles rappelées sur la page Wikipédia:Contestation du statut d'administrateur veulent que seuls les utilisateurs dont le compte a au minimum 1 semaine d'existence et 50 contributions significatives à son actif peuvent déposer une contestation de ce type. Vos deux interventions sont donc annulées. Hégésippe | ±Θ± (opérateur) 11 avril 2013 à 07:02 (CEST)

Sacrebleu! Je suppose que c'est la vie. :( Maintenant je sais. Int21h (d) 27 mai 2013 à 10:39 (CEST)

Blocage suite à imbroglio

Vous avez peut être remarqué, peut être pas, que je vous ai bloqué tout à l'heure. Cela résulte d'une confusion dont je ne peux que m'excuser ici.

Bonne continuation. --Creasy±^{‹porter plainte›} 11 avril 2013 à 16:01 (CEST)