Mailing List Archive

Erik is officially a board member -- it was approved by the board. Anything
else I either don't know.

On 9/26/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> can anyone please help me concerning the following, thx :-)
>
> is anything yet published concerning the elected candidate having been
> approved as a board member?
> has this actually been done already?
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Trustees&oldid=438600doesn't
> mention it at the time of my writing this.
>
> is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
> made steward by tim starling?
> was the board election also covering these rights?
> or was he appointed as such by the board? did i miss something?
>
> best greetings from a bewildered
> oscar
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
> made steward by tim starling?
> was the board election also covering these rights?
> or was he appointed as such by the board? did i miss something?
>
> best greetings from a bewildered
> oscar

Board memebers tend to be stewards. It saves time.


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

On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> can anyone please help me concerning the following, thx :-)
>
> is anything yet published concerning the elected candidate having been
> approved as a board member?

The election was accepted by the Board and the resolution will be made
public shortly.

> is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
> made steward by tim starling?

Tim set the steward flag on my account yesterday purely for technical
reasons. This was partially a miscommunication -- I needed accounts
for a few wikis, which the steward flag doesn't actually help with. I
used it to make myself a sysop/bureaucrat on the WMF wiki. I don't
mind if it is removed again to avoid confusion, though it might be
useful to have it for emergency uses.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> The election was accepted by the Board and the resolution will be made
> public shortly.

It was made public yesterday -
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Replacement_Board_member_2006

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

On 9/27/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was made public yesterday -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Replacement_Board_member_2006

Ah, I assumed that the vote would also be publicized.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It was made public yesterday -
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Replacement_Board_member_2006

Perhaps, but since resolutions now need only 3 votes to pass, it can
be misleading to say only 3 people supported a resolution. It implies
2 abstained or opposed when they might actually just not have had a
chance to vote yet or may still be deciding.

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

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>can anyone please help me concerning the following, thx :-)
>>
>>is anything yet published concerning the elected candidate having been
>>approved as a board member?
>
>
> The election was accepted by the Board and the resolution will be made
> public shortly.
>
>
>>is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
>>made steward by tim starling?
>
>
> Tim set the steward flag on my account yesterday purely for technical
> reasons. This was partially a miscommunication -- I needed accounts
> for a few wikis, which the steward flag doesn't actually help with. I
> used it to make myself a sysop/bureaucrat on the WMF wiki. I don't
> mind if it is removed again to avoid confusion, though it might be
> useful to have it for emergency uses.


Please, remove the steward flag.
Stewards are elected by the community, to be steward. Not self-appointed.

ant

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

On 9/27/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please, remove the steward flag.

I really don't mind - Tim, can you do this?

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stewards are elected by the community, to be steward. Not self-appointed.

One follow-up question, though: Was Jimbo ever elected? If not, should
he be a steward?

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Stewards are elected by the community, to be steward. Not
> self-appointed.
>
> One follow-up question, though: Was Jimbo ever elected? If not, should
> he be a steward?
>
>
Erik,

With all due respect, but you're no Jimbo Wales.

Regards,

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

On 9/27/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol@gmail.com> wrote:
> With all due respect, but you're no Jimbo Wales.

I knew this response (including this very wording) would come, but I
still think it's a valid question, independently of my own access.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With all due respect, but you're no Jimbo Wales.
>
> I knew this response (including this very wording) would come, but I
> still think it's a valid question, independently of my own access.


Erik,

I'm sorry I must have made a mistake. I meant to say you're not Jimbo Wales,
there was a 't' missing. I'd imagine that's not quite the same thing.

In any regard, it may be a valid question to some but I don't think it is
for the foundation. Jimbo is obviously heavily involved on the English
Wikipedia and has the power (and used) to remove sysop status from users. To
be able to do that, he has to be a steward. Now, theoretically he could
request that a steward do that on his behalf. However, since Jimbo tends to
get involved in what he would consider emergency situations, speed may be of
the essence and thus delegation inappropriate. It also relieves any
responsibility from stewards who would have to carry out his request.

Regards,

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

On 9/27/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol@gmail.com> wrote:
> In any regard, it may be a valid question to some but I don't think it is
> for the foundation. Jimbo is obviously heavily involved on the English
> Wikipedia and has the power (and used) to remove sysop status from users.

Right. That seems like a steward-like role, or at least close enough. :-)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Please, remove the steward flag.
>
> I really don't mind - Tim, can you do this?


fyi: as a steward, you can do this yourself.

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

On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> fyi: as a steward, you can do this yourself.

Done. Yay for self-mutilation. ;-)

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> > fyi: as a steward, you can do this yourself.
>
> Done. Yay for self-mutilation. ;-)


thanx :-)
please be careful not to mix up board responsibility with userrights on
projects.
any steward would have gladly helped you, setting you the userbits you
needed on foundationwiki (without having access to that wiki themselves) ;-)

all the best,
oscar
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> > is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today
> been
> > made steward by tim starling?
> > was the board election also covering these rights?
> > or was he appointed as such by the board? did i miss something?
> >
> > best greetings from a bewildered
> > oscar
>
> Board memebers tend to be stewards. It saves time.


no, mixing up chips and fish this is!

let me explain this, i found out today, talking to a fellow wikian at
kennisnet, that this is not clear to everyone. however such matters should
be considered as familiar to people like erik and tim imho.

1. anthere and angela are among the first stewards, since april 2004 (see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards)
2. both were elected board member in the 2004 elections june 2004 (see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Elections_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%2C_2004
)
3. so: the first two elected board members just happen to have been stewards
4. two out of the three board members since 2004 are not stewards, nor have
they been

therefore: not only did erik unjustly request steward-access, thus using his
newly acquired board authority to invoke maximum userrights for himself on
the projects, the rights were actually given to him by his friend tim
starling who never was an elected steward at all, but holds these rights,
just as brion vibber does, purely as a developer, for technical reasons. i
am sorry, but both went out of line here. the fact that he knew how to use
the rights, yet seemed not to know how to take them away raises some more
questions even.

it is because i could amost not believe that both had attempted to overstep
their bounds so much, that i actually thought there might have been a board
resolution of which i had no knowledge at all, therefore the title ''did i
miss something?''
as both of them are certainly no ''noobs'' this also seems to explain why no
apologies were offered i am afraid.

the more i think about it, the explanations offered afterwards i find highly
disappointing too, but maybe i was expecting too much here. "purely for
technical reasons" and "yay for self-mutilation" sound like someone having
no notion of the responsibility that should go with his position, to be
honest.

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

On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> therefore: not only did erik unjustly request steward-access, thus using his
> newly acquired board authority to invoke maximum userrights for himself on
> the projects, the rights were actually given to him by his friend tim
> starling who never was an elected steward at all, but holds these rights,
> just as brion vibber does, purely as a developer, for technical reasons. i
> am sorry, but both went out of line here. the fact that he knew how to use
> the rights, yet seemed not to know how to take them away raises some more
> questions even.

Not really I suspect most admins don't know exactly what they can do.
Something I am rather relived by. Unless you have experimented with a
mediawiki installation offsite you are unlikely to know exactly what
permission levels allow you to do before you obtain them.

> it is because i could amost not believe that both had attempted to overstep
> their bounds so much, that i actually thought there might have been a board
> resolution of which i had no knowledge at all, therefore the title ''did i
> miss something?''

There are presidents for both actions. Developers have in the past
taken action to rapidly halt what appeared to be rogue admins. And of
course there is the case of jimbo giving himself powers to carry out
the actions he did in what is generaly known as the pedophilia userbox
wheel war.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 27/09/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> > therefore: not only did erik unjustly request steward-access, thus using his
> > newly acquired board authority to invoke maximum userrights for himself on
> > the projects, the rights were actually given to him by his friend tim
> > starling who never was an elected steward at all, but holds these rights,
> > just as brion vibber does, purely as a developer, for technical reasons. i
> > am sorry, but both went out of line here. the fact that he knew how to use
> > the rights, yet seemed not to know how to take them away raises some more
> > questions even.
> > it is because i could amost not believe that both had attempted to overstep
> > their bounds so much, that i actually thought there might have been a board
> > resolution of which i had no knowledge at all, therefore the title ''did i
> > miss something?''


And remember the fundamental Wikimedia community policy: Assume Good Faith.


> Not really I suspect most admins don't know exactly what they can do.
> Something I am rather relived by. Unless you have experimented with a
> mediawiki installation offsite you are unlikely to know exactly what
> permission levels allow you to do before you obtain them.


Well, yeah. Erik cut a corner, he now understands why he shouldn't
have, it's been reversed, no harm was done. Oskar, what further remedy
do you see a need for here?


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

On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> therefore: not only did erik unjustly request steward-access, thus using his
> newly acquired board authority to invoke maximum userrights for himself on
> the projects, the rights were actually given to him by his friend tim
> starling who never was an elected steward at all, but holds these rights,
> just as brion vibber does, purely as a developer, for technical reasons. i
> am sorry, but both went out of line here. the fact that he knew how to use
> the rights, yet seemed not to know how to take them away raises some more
> questions even.
>
I vote we smack the wrists of both Tim and Erik. Erik's twice, and
Tim's five times.

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

I vote we forgive and forget. Let me share you some folklore from the land
of Wikinews.

A while back, an administrator construed a user's comments as a personal
attack, and blocked said person. Another administrator disagreed, and
blocked the blocking administrator for a hell of a long time for "admin
abuse". Ungodly wheel warring ensued. It was so bad that it actually led to
arbitration. The comments were being made by involved parties, then a fresh
voice came in: Eloquence's. He says that instead of arbitration, the
administrators should forgive and forget. It was a pathetic situation to
begin with, so there was really no value of having arbitration over it.
Indeed, the affair became inactive and the request for arbitration was
withdrawn.

If we spend all this time slapping Erik for messing up, we won't accomplish
anything. Let's forgive Erik and Tim for messing up, consider the fact that
no damage was done, and move onto more important issues.

On 9/27/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> > therefore: not only did erik unjustly request steward-access, thus using
> his
> > newly acquired board authority to invoke maximum userrights for himself
> on
> > the projects, the rights were actually given to him by his friend tim
> > starling who never was an elected steward at all, but holds these
> rights,
> > just as brion vibber does, purely as a developer, for technical reasons.
> i
> > am sorry, but both went out of line here. the fact that he knew how to
> use
> > the rights, yet seemed not to know how to take them away raises some
> more
> > questions even.
> >
> I vote we smack the wrists of both Tim and Erik. Erik's twice, and
> Tim's five times.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On 9/28/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> the more i think about it, the explanations offered afterwards i find highly
> disappointing too, but maybe i was expecting too much here. "purely for
> technical reasons" and "yay for self-mutilation" sound like someone having
> no notion of the responsibility that should go with his position, to be
> honest.

Yay for pointless accusations and flamewars about database flags.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 9/28/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>the more i think about it, the explanations offered afterwards i find highly
>>disappointing too, but maybe i was expecting too much here. "purely for
>>technical reasons" and "yay for self-mutilation" sound like someone having
>>no notion of the responsibility that should go with his position, to be
>>honest.
>>
>>
>
>Yay for pointless accusations and flamewars about database flags.
>
>
>
That is an extremely impolite answer Erik. I would have expected better.

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

Walter van Kalken wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> the more i think about it, the explanations offered afterwards i find highly
>>> disappointing too, but maybe i was expecting too much here. "purely for
>>> technical reasons" and "yay for self-mutilation" sound like someone having
>>> no notion of the responsibility that should go with his position, to be
>>> honest.
>>>
>>>
>> Yay for pointless accusations and flamewars about database flags.
>>
>>
>>
> That is an extremely impolite answer Erik. I would have expected better.
>

Perhaps you missed his .sig:

> DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

You are all assuming that there was something underhanded going on here.
The whole thing was an accident. You are making a big deal out of
nothing. Move along, nothing to see here.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP