BorgHunter schrieb:
I understand the concerns about the Office action, and how it may have posed a legal threat to Wikimedia. The issue at stake here, however, is not "Was the Office action justified?" Rather, I think the problem was, at a fundamental level, communication. Along the way, it was failed to be communicated that the action in question was indeed an Office action. Thus, it was acted upon as if it was not.
And then it is okay to revert another admin's actions without even asking before? This seems to me a problem of lack of good faith an admin should assume.
If Wikimedia feels the need to
issue such an action, should it not be clearly labeled to avoid that very legal threat to Wikipedia that Danny was attempting to avoid in the first place? I hope that all involved have learned from the experience, but I don't think that Erik constitutes a continued threat. His action was borne of misunderstanding, and actions against him to prevent further threats are, now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up, unnecessary.
This was not a misunderstanding, this was lack of good faith. Erik should have trusted danny that he has good reasons for an action which might not be selfexplaining. If he wanted to know more, he could have asked. And an admin who acts before he understands the situation can - as this incident has shown - potentially endanger the foundation.
I don't think anyone is questioning the legitimacy of the Office action here, but I think we all are concerned that a misunderstanding led to all this. Again, I ask: Should Office actions not be labeled explicitly as such?
It is often better to play things low and not on an official level. I don't know if this was the case here.
greetings, elian
On 4/19/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
And then it is okay to revert another admin's actions without even asking before? This seems to me a problem of lack of good faith an admin should assume.
Sometimes. If they say move the main page or mess with the mediawiki names space. Exactly where you draw the line is open to deabte
This was not a misunderstanding, this was lack of good faith. Erik should have trusted danny that he has good reasons for an action which might not be selfexplaining. If he wanted to know more, he could have asked. And an admin who acts before he understands the situation can - as this incident has shown - potentially endanger the foundation.
Admins almost never work with complete information.
It is often better to play things low and not on an official level. I don't know if this was the case here.
In theory. However my experence is that on wikipedia doing thing unofficialy can often lead to more screaming in the long run.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 4/19/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
This was not a misunderstanding, this was lack of good faith. Erik should have trusted danny that he has good reasons for an action which might not be selfexplaining. If he wanted to know more, he could have asked. And an admin who acts before he understands the situation can - as this incident has shown - potentially endanger the foundation.
Admins almost never work with complete information.
Indeed, Brad himself wrote just that in his response:
"Not everything that involves Wikipedia is public, nor should it be. The typical user or admin doesn't have all the pieces of the puzzle."
Note that, while this is abviously true, it doesn't mean I necessarily like it much. I don't know WTF is going on at the office -- my first thought was that Danny must be really close to burning out from stress to react so out of proportion -- but events like this are making Wikipedia feel like a minefield, an oppressive place where one must watch one's every word and never take a step before checking twice that no-one's toes are in the way. If I'm to work effectively as an admin, I _need_ all the pieces of the puzzle, or at least I need to know where the missing pieces are. We are not mushrooms, to be kept in the dark and fed manure.
I strongly supported Kelly Martin's earlier 0RR proposal, since it was sensible and clear: don't redo what you did earlier without discussion. But if the new policy is to be that an admin may not do anything that might step on someone else's toes, I'm not sure I dare to continue being an admin.
I don't think there is any real danger of getting into a mess if you simply make it a practice to never reverse the action of another administrator. We have not made this a hard fast rule, but It completely avoids wheel-warring, an evil which transcends most instances of harm which are done by ill-considered actions of administrators.
Fred
On Apr 19, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
geni wrote:
On 4/19/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
This was not a misunderstanding, this was lack of good faith. Erik should have trusted danny that he has good reasons for an action which might not be selfexplaining. If he wanted to know more, he could have asked. And an admin who acts before he understands the situation can - as this incident has shown - potentially endanger the foundation.
Admins almost never work with complete information.
Indeed, Brad himself wrote just that in his response:
"Not everything that involves Wikipedia is public, nor should it be. The typical user or admin doesn't have all the pieces of the puzzle."
Note that, while this is abviously true, it doesn't mean I necessarily like it much. I don't know WTF is going on at the office -- my first thought was that Danny must be really close to burning out from stress to react so out of proportion -- but events like this are making Wikipedia feel like a minefield, an oppressive place where one must watch one's every word and never take a step before checking twice that no-one's toes are in the way. If I'm to work effectively as an admin, I _need_ all the pieces of the puzzle, or at least I need to know where the missing pieces are. We are not mushrooms, to be kept in the dark and fed manure.
I strongly supported Kelly Martin's earlier 0RR proposal, since it was sensible and clear: don't redo what you did earlier without discussion. But if the new policy is to be that an admin may not do anything that might step on someone else's toes, I'm not sure I dare to continue being an admin.
-- Ilmari Karonen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not discussing the legal basis here, total trust in Brad's legal skills and expertise.
But any action could have been done with consideration.
I'm not famous for being a member of Erik's fan club, though I've always had respect for both his creativity and his coding ability. Once Erik had done his mistake, even if it was in a allegedly malicious drive, what would have been the problem with taking it easy after Erik took his phone and called Danny ? What whould have been the problem with re-protecting the page ASAP and telling him on the phone to *stay away from a serious legal issue* : a seven word sentence to say.
Now, indefinite block and desysopping at first sight ? The crucial legal issue is one thing, displaying such an obvious amount of contempt is another one. Next time somebody is experienced as a troublemaker for Foundation, one can use subtility, or finesse, or even mere common sense, instead of shooting at first sight. What could be expected from that, apart from a new useless conflict ? I'm aghast.
The rest of my comments will go to private lists or mails, if it's worth it - which I doubt.
villy ~~JC