Posting during breaks is a bad idea. I meant kill as in we should stop discussing this as
there is no effective remedy, no mod kill intended.
________________________________
From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:29:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
That people on this list can't necessarily interfere or overturn the
de-adminship is a point separate from whether or not it can be discussed
here. I'm not aware of any hard rules limiting topics of discussion to those
issues which can readily be addressed by participants of this forum.
Bringing it here may not be all that useful, and further discussion not all
that helpful to anyone in particular, but that isn't a justification for
killing the thread. I can't see Austin or Michael or whoever else actually
killing a civil discussion in any case, so its a moot point really.
Also, you may want to reconsider the logic of posting your interpretation
and conclusion about events and *then* asking for the thread to be killed.
Mods aren't here to provide you with the last word.
Nathan
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>wrote;wrote:
I have refrained from commenting in the interests of
letting this play out
but find myself in disagreement with our worthy colleague from Wikisource.
The locus of this complaint, as I see it, is that he was unfairly removed
from his position. I see no merit in his claims for the following reason and
believe this thread should be killed for the following reasons.
We have traditionally allowed each community to set up its own principles.
Meta level intervention in a project, barring blatant illegality, is
unprecedented and would indicate a significant departure from our bottom up
ideology. As administrators are appointed/elected volunteers serving
according to project rules, rather than formal employees, it is impossible
for there to be any illegality in dismissal. There is therefore a
considerable precedent not to interfere, which would be detrimental to our
ideological foundation.
Unlike Wikipedia, adminiship is held for terms of one year. Mr. Saintonge
has not disputed the validity of this process, therefore I am not going to
examine it. However, I do wish to commend the authors of the policy as it is
a functional and easily readable document. Upon review of the Restricted
Access Policy, I see the following statement, "However, anyone is free to
discuss". Therefore, the attempt to strike the comments by John and
Pathoschild seem to be attempts at stifling criticism. Each user has the
right and ability to present their concerns, no matter how oddball they
are. I can only see evidence from Pathoschild, which clearly proves the
allegations made. The allegations are without a reasonable doubt, true for
pathoschild's case. Since the comments supporting dismissal
referenced pathoschild's allegations, there is no reason to consider them
misled. For these reasons, there were no errors in the proceeding.
Finally the process is based on whether or not people trust Mr. Saintonge
as an admin, not whether he desires to continue. It is readily apparent that
there is no trust.
For all the above, I move to kill this thread.
________________________________
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:03:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
Birgitte SB wrote:
Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on
Meta for anything remotely
like this situation. And I would say that if were
regarding any wiki (I am
sure I have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past).
The wikis are autonomous on these issues. If someone has reason why en.WS
adminship rules are incompatible with the general purposes of the project,
then please share. Otherwise discuss in the proper forum which is en.WS.
I have since the very beginning been a strong supporter of project
autonomy, and have usually been very critical of anyone who tries to
impose the rules of other projects in Wikisource. Last summer, when
another de-sysop process happened, I also spoke strongly against
allowing ourselves to be overly influenced by that person's overly bad
behaviour on other projects; I conservatively concurred with what
happened based solely on events at wikisource.
In the course of the discussion about me, I considered coming here at an
early stage, but decided that I would let things play out on wiki
first. I did not raise the issue here until a few days after the
decision was closed and implemented.
If I had not commented on events here, would you have noticed it, and
would it even have crossed your mind to comment as you did above? Given
the still relatively small community at en:ws, where does one turn for a
calmer and more objective analysis from someone who is not a part of the
apparent piling on? If the result of raising the issue here is a fairer
discussion on wiki, I can't complain about that. There should always be
a place for off-wiki safety valves.
I see that you have asked a question on my talk page, so I will address
more specific matters there shortly.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today:
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: