2006/4/23, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels