[Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource

Nathan nawrich at gmail.com
Thu Mar 12 16:29:01 UTC 2009

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.


On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com>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 at telus.net>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

More information about the foundation-l mailing list