On 3/12/09, Nathan <[email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> >> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected]> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Michael Bimmler [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
