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 [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
