[Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource

Thu Mar 12 22:31:38 UTC 2009

On 3/12/09, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Confirmed. Intra-project interference is an interesting yet
controversial matter (think Wikicouncil, think MetaArbcom, think
Meta:RFC) and I don't know why I should kill civil discussion. The
specific case might not be the best startingpoint but you can't choose
your discussion triggers...

Best
Michael

Sent from my iPhone

>
> 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler at gmail.com