Mailing List Archive

I do mean both. And Jimbo wrongly states that it has anything to do with de
desysop procedure. As you can read yourself in the logs at meta, Waerth
desysoped HIMSELF at 24 January. After that he stayed Steward for two
months, without resysoping himself at NL. At 24 March he has been
de-stewarded, based on false information provided by Oscar.

Johan Bos (Jcb)

----- Original Message -----
From: "sannse" <sannse@tiscali.co.uk>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand - @Jimbo


>
>
> Johan Bos wrote:
>> Dear Jimbo,
>>
>> You should know one thing. I am a native Dutch speaker, so I could
>> perfectly
>> follow all the communication around the troubles with Waerth. I also read
>> some of the communications towards you and I concluded that you have been
>> misinformed a bit. The internation messages which I read did totally not
>> represent the matter in a righteous way. Let me state one thing quite
>> clear:
>>
>> ¡Waerth would never have abused his stewardship or his being a press
>> contact!
>
> "Would not"? or "did not threaten to"? Because if you just mean the
> first, then I'm afraid I have to say the actions taken in removing
> Waerth as steward and press contact were 100% correct.
>
> --sannse
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Cormac Lawler wrote:

> Yes, very well said Anthere. That is indeed what I meant - even though
> that is not what I said :-)
>
> Cormac

Je parle très mieux anglais que toi :-)

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

On 20-mei-2006, at 23:32, Johan Bos wrote:

> I do mean both. And Jimbo wrongly states that it has anything to do
> with de
> desysop procedure. As you can read yourself in the logs at meta,
> Waerth
> desysoped HIMSELF at 24 January. After that he stayed Steward for two
> months, without resysoping himself at NL. At 24 March he has been
> de-stewarded, based on false information provided by Oscar.

As far as I recall the situation, Waerth at that time tried to force
me to
stop defending users that were bullied by him. He did so by trying to
bully
me. In the end Waerth and I were both blocked by Galwaygirl, because
she got fed up by the situation and didn't understand that Waerths
threats should not be negotiable (they simply should be stopped).

At that moment Waerth threatened to undo his block. (As far as I
understand the technicalities involved, he could do so, because he
was a steward.)
As a result he was de-stewarded by Dannyisme, on request of Oscar.

I don't recall you were there Johan, but it was a hectic situation,
so maybe
you were there after all. Jimbo was, but left in time. ;-)


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

Dear Erik,

I read the complete chatlog and what you are stating is NOT true.

Johan Bos (Jcb)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik van den Muijzenberg" <muijz@wikipedia.be>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand - @Jimbo


> On 20-mei-2006, at 23:32, Johan Bos wrote:
>
>> I do mean both. And Jimbo wrongly states that it has anything to do
>> with de
>> desysop procedure. As you can read yourself in the logs at meta,
>> Waerth
>> desysoped HIMSELF at 24 January. After that he stayed Steward for two
>> months, without resysoping himself at NL. At 24 March he has been
>> de-stewarded, based on false information provided by Oscar.
>
> As far as I recall the situation, Waerth at that time tried to force
> me to
> stop defending users that were bullied by him. He did so by trying to
> bully
> me. In the end Waerth and I were both blocked by Galwaygirl, because
> she got fed up by the situation and didn't understand that Waerths
> threats should not be negotiable (they simply should be stopped).
>
> At that moment Waerth threatened to undo his block. (As far as I
> understand the technicalities involved, he could do so, because he
> was a steward.)
> As a result he was de-stewarded by Dannyisme, on request of Oscar.
>
> I don't recall you were there Johan, but it was a hectic situation,
> so maybe
> you were there after all. Jimbo was, but left in time. ;-)
>
>
> +++ Muijz
> _______________________________________________
> 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

sannse wrote:

>Johan Bos wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Jimbo,
>>
>>You should know one thing. I am a native Dutch speaker, so I could perfectly
>>follow all the communication around the troubles with Waerth. I also read
>>some of the communications towards you and I concluded that you have been
>>misinformed a bit. The internation messages which I read did totally not
>>represent the matter in a righteous way. Let me state one thing quite clear:
>>
>>¡Waerth would never have abused his stewardship or his being a press
>>contact!
>>
>>
>
>"Would not"? or "did not threaten to"? Because if you just mean the
>first, then I'm afraid I have to say the actions taken in removing
>Waerth as steward and press contact were 100% correct.
>
>
>
Please read my earlier answer to Jimbo Sannse and there you will see
that I did admit to saying those things, but that I never did it. Also
if things go wrong in the foundation and no-one reacts at first were do
you go then? Please answer that? I didn't have the three years that
discussions usually take. I feel it is a shamefull thing that people do
not take comments seriously untill they make the ultimate threat.
Basically someone is ignored and not being heard untill he says the
ultimate thing. It is extremely bad that this happened and everyone
ignored things and let this happen. It is actually still happening
because RonaldB is still ignoring all questions!

The foundation could learn a thing or two from this. One of them being
that complaints should be taken more seriously at an earlier stage,
especially if they have been uttered by an active member and not just by
him. Ignoring complaints and sticking your head in the sand only leads
to escalation, problems do not get solved by being ignored, people get
extremely pissed especially with the ignoring of a time-sensitive
subject. Although many people have told me that ignoring is the right
way to solve a problem (or should I say "challenge" for the political
correct ones out there) in the foundation, basically all people adhering
to that school of thought are damaging the situation and are damaging
the foundation. Because a next time it won't just blow over and fade
away like it has now.

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

Michael Snow a écrit :


>Lawyers are not restricted to giving legal opinions and nothing else,
>sometimes they need to represent their clients in communicating with
>third parties, as Brad did here. Brad's intervention was helpful
>(because it got across his client's position), misrepresented nothing,
>and if it wasn't as polite as suits your tastes, it's because more
>polite ways of communicating this hadn't yet gotten the message across.

>--Michael Snow


Does it mean the Foundation will begin to communicate with the community by interposed lawyers ? That's nonsense.

Traroth



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

sannse a écrit :


>"Would not"? or "did not threaten to"? Because if you just mean the
>first, then I'm afraid I have to say the actions taken in removing
>Waerth as steward and press contact were 100% correct.

>--sannse


Please stop to insinuate and say somethinh concrete. Your message seems to me like FUD.

Traroth



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

Johan Bos wrote:
> You should know one thing. I am a native Dutch speaker, so I could perfectly
> follow all the communication around the troubles with Waerth. I also read
> some of the communications towards you and I concluded that you have been
> misinformed a bit. The internation messages which I read did totally not
> represent the matter in a righteous way. Let me state one thing quite clear:
>
> ¡Waerth would never have abused his stewardship or his being a press
> contact!
>
> Your conclusions are at least partly based on false information and you have
> been impeded too much by your disability of understanding Dutch.


I understand. I have always been a big supporter of Waerth, and I
continue to support him. I think that various things that have happened
in Dutch wikipedia have been unfortunate, and I also think that even
Waerth's biggest supporters (and there are many) would advise him to
respond in a more calm manner to various provocations.

--Jimbo

Walter van Kalken wrote:

>Please read my earlier answer to Jimbo Sannse and there you will see
>that I did admit to saying those things, but that I never did it. Also
>if things go wrong in the foundation and no-one reacts at first were do
>you go then? Please answer that? I didn't have the three years that
>discussions usually take. I feel it is a shamefull thing that people do
>not take comments seriously untill they make the ultimate threat.
>Basically someone is ignored and not being heard untill he says the
>ultimate thing. It is extremely bad that this happened and everyone
>ignored things and let this happen. It is actually still happening
>because RonaldB is still ignoring all questions!
>
The point here is that a threat to use one's greater powers (such as
stewardship) can be every bit as disruptive as actually using them...
perhaps even more so because of the air of uncertainty that it creates.
Kids can react negatively when a parent says, "You have to do this
because I said so."

>The foundation could learn a thing or two from this. One of them being
>that complaints should be taken more seriously at an earlier stage,
>especially if they have been uttered by an active member and not just by
>him. Ignoring complaints and sticking your head in the sand only leads
>to escalation, problems do not get solved by being ignored, people get
>extremely pissed especially with the ignoring of a time-sensitive
>subject. Although many people have told me that ignoring is the right
>way to solve a problem (or should I say "challenge" for the political
>correct ones out there) in the foundation, basically all people adhering
>to that school of thought are damaging the situation and are damaging
>the foundation. Because a next time it won't just blow over and fade
>away like it has now.
>
Welcome to the real world! My own experience is that I know I've
espressed a good idea by how much it's ignored. I need to apologize
profusely to all those others who have had good ideas which I have
ignored. I still have many of those ideas from two and three years ago
in my in box, and try to maintain the vain hope that someday I will
answer them. Good ideas require quiet reflection before a valid
response orconstructive criticism can be sent back, and if I may lament
on this myself we are ever more acclimatized as a society to
instantaneous response and gratification. It leads to an insidious
proliferation of rules designed to provide quick fixes for all our
problems, because the number of them that we feel compelled to solve
seems overwhelming.

Ignoring a problem out of a mistaken devotion to political correctsness
does _not_ solve any problems; it makes one a part of the problem.

Maybe we should have a SlowWiki ... even though that may be an oxymoron.

Ec

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

Traroth wrote:
> sannse a écrit :
>
>
>> "Would not"? or "did not threaten to"? Because if you just mean the
>> first, then I'm afraid I have to say the actions taken in removing
>> Waerth as steward and press contact were 100% correct.
>
>> --sannse
>
>
> Please stop to insinuate and say somethinh concrete. Your message seems to me like FUD.
>
> Traroth

There was no insinuation. Just a request for clarification and an opinion.

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