Mailing List Archive

daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

>At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
>removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his conflict
>with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and recognize
>that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
>necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block on nl.wiki.
>
>I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
>stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances are unprecedented.
>
>Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
>discussion of what policy should be.
>
>
>
Yes there is a conflict between Muijz and me.
Here are the bulletpoints.

*Muijz refuses negotiations ... I do not, I welcomed them.
*When asked on IRC: I give in on multiple points in order to get peace
**Deletion of page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerths_first_concession
**Deletion of Mousetrap on talkpage:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#2e_concessie_van_Waerth_nog_stteds_geen_van_Muijz
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#2e_concessie_van_Waerth_nog_stteds_geen_van_Muijz
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerth_geeft_aan_Muijz_al_een_tijdlang_te_mijden

*Muijz never was willing to give in on any point at all. Everytime when
asked something bij the negotiators he was either silent or didn't
answer the question
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Galwaygirl_vraagt_aan_Muijz_of_hij_het_conflict_door_wil_laten_gaan
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Muijz_weigert_medewerking_gaat_alleen_in_op_slechtheid_van_waerth
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Wederom_vraag_aan_Muijz.2C_wederom_geen_antwoord
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Muijz_weigert_wederom_medewerking

*I offered my apologies Muijz still didn't react!
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Excuses_van_Waerth

*I have done all I could to solve this matter. I give answers to the
negotiators. I co-operate. I also said I was willing to stop the fight.
Muijz refused. I even said lets burry the hatchet
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerth_begraaft_de_strijbijl
*Muijz never wanted to.

Yet I am being blocked for a week a now!! Together with Muijz and the
reason is falsely that I am unwilling to co-operate. From the beginning
of this year there has been a witchhunt against me with as the purpose
getting me to leave nl.wikipedia. Teasing me off. Seems people have
succeeded now.

Waerth/Walter
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Walter van Kalken wrote:

>daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
>>removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his conflict
>>with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and recognize
>>that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
>>necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block on nl.wiki.
>>
>>I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
>>stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances are unprecedented.
>>
>>Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
>>discussion of what policy should be.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes there is a conflict between Muijz and me.
>Here are the bulletpoints.
>
>*Muijz refuses negotiations ... I do not, I welcomed them.
>*When asked on IRC: I give in on multiple points in order to get peace
>**Deletion of page:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerths_first_concession
>**Deletion of Mousetrap on talkpage:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#2e_concessie_van_Waerth_nog_stteds_geen_van_Muijz
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#2e_concessie_van_Waerth_nog_stteds_geen_van_Muijz
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerth_geeft_aan_Muijz_al_een_tijdlang_te_mijden
>
>*Muijz never was willing to give in on any point at all. Everytime when
>asked something bij the negotiators he was either silent or didn't
>answer the question
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Galwaygirl_vraagt_aan_Muijz_of_hij_het_conflict_door_wil_laten_gaan
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Muijz_weigert_medewerking_gaat_alleen_in_op_slechtheid_van_waerth
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Wederom_vraag_aan_Muijz.2C_wederom_geen_antwoord
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Muijz_weigert_wederom_medewerking
>
>*I offered my apologies Muijz still didn't react!
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Excuses_van_Waerth
>
>*I have done all I could to solve this matter. I give answers to the
>negotiators. I co-operate. I also said I was willing to stop the fight.
>Muijz refused. I even said lets burry the hatchet
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerth_begraaft_de_strijbijl
>*Muijz never wanted to.
>
>Yet I am being blocked for a week a now!! Together with Muijz and the
>reason is falsely that I am unwilling to co-operate. From the beginning
>of this year there has been a witchhunt against me with as the purpose
>getting me to leave nl.wikipedia. Teasing me off. Seems people have
>succeeded now.
>
>
>
Since thing were removed from wikipedia, I placed it over here. This is
weird the only evidence I have and I am not allowed to use it as
evidence against an illegal block.

Walter/Waerth
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

my suggestion as to policy would be to add the following paragraph to the
stewards-page:
---
Any abuse, or even the threatening of abuse, of the steward-rights, will
lead to an immediate and permanent removal of these.
---
oscar

On 3/24/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
>
> At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
> removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his
> conflict
> with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and
> recognize
> that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
> necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block
> on nl.wiki.
>
> I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
> stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances
> are unprecedented.
>
> Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
> discussion of what policy should be.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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 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.

It is possible to implement the proposal retro-actively. When stewards
were chosen, it was always said that they were then accepted or not
accepted by the board/Jimmy. It is therefore the board/Jimmy who can
say that they do not trust Waerth anymore in his role as a steward.
This is a communication/decision that cannot be delegated.

So from my perspective; the proposal has merit. It is up to the board
or Jimmy personally to decide on Waerth's stewardship. It would be
best to have clarity and have it settled as soon as possible; in the
end it is about people and community.

Thanks,
GerardM


On 4/23/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> my suggestion as to policy would be to add the following paragraph to the
> stewards-page:
> ---
> Any abuse, or even the threatening of abuse, of the steward-rights, will
> lead to an immediate and permanent removal of these.
> ---
> oscar
>
> On 3/24/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
> > removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his
> > conflict
> > with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and
> > recognize
> > that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
> > necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block
> > on nl.wiki.
> >
> > I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
> > stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances
> > are unprecedented.
> >
> > Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
> > discussion of what policy should be.
> >
> > Danny
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2006/4/23, GerardM <gerard.meijssen@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@gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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@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@gmail.com
>ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l