[Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship

Sun Apr 23 15:57:09 UTC 2006

I agree with Andre that this are 2 seperate issues. Danny said in his 
public comunication that it would be temporarily. Not permanently. I 
have never abused my steward abilities. I have always handled as per the 
guidelines and rules. Why this is being made permanent all of a sudden I 
do nt know. I would like to be told openly I am not trusted with it 
..... by the board and not someones who claims to know what the board 
thinks. Or I would really appreciate it if my stewardship was restored.

It has been a month now. And that is long enough I feel for people 
making up there mind.

I am also surprised/shocked that oscar wants to implement a policy 
retro-actively to keep me out of stewardship. Anything to do with my 
opposition to the Dutch Foundation perhaps? Which was put through by 
Oscar and RonaldB against the explicit wishes of the community about 
which there was a vote! I am in favour of the association btw

Waerth/Walter

>2006/4/23, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>  
>
>>Hoi,
>>The proposal may be sensible BUT is it to be implemented retro
>>actively? Given the current situation in the Dutch chapter and the
>>Dutch wikipedia where a substantial group of people are dissatisfied
>>because of a perceived lack of communication, this is absolutely the
>>wrong thing to do.
>>    
>>
>
>I agree with Gerard that the situation around the Dutch chapter is
>very worrying. It causes maybe the deepest rift ever having been
>placed into the Dutch community, even though there seems to be a
>history of crises there.
>
>However, I do not so what a possible removal of Steward rights from
>Waerth would have to do with this. Surely the Dutch community will
>understand that Stewardship is based on deliberations in the Wikimedia
>community at large, and not necessarily in the Dutch one. On the other
>hand, retroactiveness should also not be automatical; I think it
>should be a separate proposal that Oscar has not made.
>
>Having said that, I think the wording is too strong:
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Any abuse, or even the threatening of abuse, of the steward-rights, will
>lead to an immediate and permanent removal of these.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>People can do actions that others see as abuse while acting in
>perfectly good intentions. They get a request from a community, follow
>it, and later hear the request was not bona fide (for example, there
>was a procedure in place at the specific wiki that should have been
>followed and was not). The sysop has both people in favor and people
>opposed. Those opposed claim he was abusing steward-rights. Seeing the
>fighting that has been started, another Steward removes the
>sysop-rights from this person. Those in favor claim he was abusing
>steward-rights. Hell, for that sake, some might be of the opinion that
>Danny's un-stewarding of Waerth was an abuse of Steward rights.
>
>Secondly, the issue with the abuse of Steward rights is that Stewards
>should be trusted. Abusing one's rights breaks that trust. However, I
>see no reason why someone cannot regain that trust by showing true
>regret over their action and acting trustworthy from then on.
>
>Because of this, I would propose to change the proposed rule by
>changing "will" in "may" and removing the "and permanent" part.
>
>  
>
>>I have heard noices that it is not for people of the Dutch community
>>to question the procedures around this. This is one factor that makes
>>the situation of the Dutch chapter even worse because it suggest that
>>things are done in secret and it strenghtens the existing feeling of
>>un-ease because it demonstrates that while the letter of the statues
>>of the Dutch chapter suggest a hands-off approach the facts on the
>>ground are different. These "noices" did not originate from people of
>>the chapter by the way.
>>    
>>
>
>Again, I don't see the connection. It would not be the Dutch Wikimedia
>Association, nor the much-maligned Dutch Wikimedia Foundation that
>would be doing this, and surely the Dutch Wikipedia community cannot
>expect to be the one deciding over a Wikimedia-wide function such as
>Steward.
>
>As for the Dutch charter problem, I am not sure what should be done
>with that. The amount of distrust shown towards RonaldB and the Dutch
>Wikimedia Foundation is huge. And his attempts to take away the
>distrust are few and ineffective. Things seem to be on a collision
>course, but I have no idea how they can be led back to the right
>track.
>
>--
>Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
>ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  
>