It seems to me that Danny should have marked his action as WP:OFFICE if he meant it to carry the weight of an office action. Not only did he leave off the WP:Office label, he also left a misleading Talk page summary: "This article has been stubbed and protected pending resolution of POV issues."
That is very misleading and misleading the community is not a good way to build trust or goodwill.
There should be no such thing as an office action that cannot be advertised as an office action. No one is asking Danny to explain WHY the office action has to be taken. Just tell us it IS an office action so we know not to revert it.
Asking people to be mind readers is just wrong.
It's perfectly fine to suggest that maybe Eloquence should have contacted Danny BEFORE reverting, not after. But if we are going to hold Eloquence to that standard, then we should hold Danny to it as well. That means that Danny should have contacted Eloquence before he banned him and de-sysopped him.
Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the importance of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy. I guess maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.
-Johntex
On 4/20/06, John Tex johntexster@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the importance of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy. I guess maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.
This is uncalled for.
Firstly Brad said that there does need to be a healthy debate about precisely this.
Secondly the question of whether the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed by the person performing the protection is of piddling insignificance when set against the fact that the right thing is done.
Policy is that we don't let potentially dangerous content remain while we discuss a problem with a third party who has contacted us with a serious complaint. If this isn't spelled out then perhaps it should be.
I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards Danny's office actions like moths to a flame. No wonder he doesn't want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones. This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just isn't enough. The rules are not an end in themselves. We must recognise that the Foundation does important work to keep this and the other projects alive and well funded, and it must be permitted to do that. All the fripperies about whether X or Y followed some rules are immaterial. The work must be done.
On 20 Apr 2006, at 02:52, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Secondly the question of whether the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed by the person performing the protection is of piddling insignificance when set against the fact that the right thing is done.
Policy is that we don't let potentially dangerous content remain while we discuss a problem with a third party who has contacted us with a serious complaint. If this isn't spelled out then perhaps it should be.
I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards Danny's office actions like moths to a flame. No wonder he doesn't want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones. This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just isn't enough. The rules are not an end in themselves. We must recognise that the Foundation does important work to keep this and the other projects alive and well funded, and it must be permitted to do that. All the fripperies about whether X or Y followed some rules are immaterial. The work must be done.
The problem seems to be that if even admins cant see what is being done then people will be upset. This is purely a software problem that can be fixed by various means. If the Danny account is to be specially privileged otherwise than all admins need to know. But this of course wont be secret. It would be better to have an invisible office note for admins if this is seen as necessary.
Justinc
On 4/20/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/06, John Tex johntexster@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the importance of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy. I guess maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.
This is uncalled for.
Firstly Brad said that there does need to be a healthy debate about precisely this.
Secondly the question of whether the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed by the person performing the protection is of piddling insignificance when set against the fact that the right thing is done.
It not so much that that the i were not dotted and the t were not crossed. It's that the the dots and crosses removed.
Policy is that we don't let potentially dangerous content remain while we discuss a problem with a third party who has contacted us with a serious complaint. If this isn't spelled out then perhaps it should be.
I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards Danny's office actions like moths to a flame. No wonder he doesn't want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones. This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just isn't enough. The rules are not an end in themselves. We must recognise that the Foundation does important work to keep this and the other projects alive and well funded, and it must be permitted to do that. All the fripperies about whether X or Y followed some rules are immaterial. The work must be done.
WP:OFFICE actions can be carried out. They cannot be carried out in secret since that would involve sucessfuly hideing information from wikipedians (the only way to do that is to claim something is a wikipedia guideline or list it as a copyvio). We have a process of sorts. If it is goinged to be changed some warning would be nice. -- geni