On 9/27/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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_W… ) 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

On 27/09/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: And remember the fundamental Wikimedia community policy: Assume Good Faith. 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.

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(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Erik Moeller wrote: That is an extremely impolite answer Erik. I would have expected better. Walter/Waerth

On 9/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: i apologize for overemphasizing my point; let's move along, yes. oscar

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

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

On 9/27/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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.

On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

On 9/27/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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.

On 9/27/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

On 9/27/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.