On 4/20/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I have not followed the details of this, but I will tell you what I think in general terms. I am amazed how many people have written this list with the underlying idea that it is proper to immediately revert the admin action of *any* other admin without disscusiion. I think that in itself would deserve some sort of reprimand, and shows unsuitability as an admin.
First Eric commits what I consider a breach of etiquette by unprotecting a page on his own. This may be just a difference in culture, but at WS we expect admins to request protection/unprotection like any other editor and a separate admin will carry out the action. So to unprotect a page on your own volition is like closing a deletion where you made the original nomination in my eyes. Next is the fact that page had *just* been protected. If it had just been done by any average admin, I would question if Eric was trying to start a wheel war at this point. Then you add the fact that the admin action was made by a *steward*, which is a highly trusted position. Now any idea the Eric is acting in good faith is very hard to believe. Do you really believe it is acceptable to revert a steward on any admin action without discussion? And on top of that Danny is a Foundation employee who often makes non-editorial decisions. I don't know how Eric could not have known he was asking for trouble. The fact that I have seen so many responses purporting that Eric made an honest mistake only makes me certain that a strong message needed to be sent. I will not comment on the actual reprimands, because I am not familiar with what generally warrants desysoping at WP. I cannot express how surprised I am that you think Eric should get an apology. I do hope he can be repatriated to the project and that everyone who at first thought his actions where acceptable realizes their error.
I wonder sometimes whether people involved in this project, really take it seriously. This is real organization here with real concerns and a real hierarchy. We elect stewards for a reason, so that when they do something it can be trusted. We ask people like Danny to take responsibility to do the things that must be done for this organization. We must trust them.
If you do not trust the organization, work to change it on the big issues that your distrust stems from. Picking a fight with every decision however will get you no results. People will simply tune you out. Not everyone (or even many people) can be aware of the details of every decision. If this is the reason for any lack of trust, I think the problem is more with you. Because no matter who sits on the board that is not going to change.
BirgitteSB
I agree with Birgitte here, and I've left in the whole post because I'm responding to all of it.
First of all, English WP has been in a bit of upheaval lately about undiscussed reversal of admin actions, so it should be on someone's mind even without knowing that it is Danny.
Secondly: Erik is an intelligent person who generally knows what's up. I would think seeing Danny protect a page and want to lay low about it would be a hint to wait for more information to be clear first. Danny is not generally one to stub and protect articles simply because he doesn't like them, and knows well enough that what he did is outside normal procedure. Why this one? And Erik is not generally one to go about monitoring page protections. Why this one?
Even unmarked: when I see something fishy, done by a steward, a longtime contributor, and an employee of the Foundation, and he seems hesitant to talk about it, I am inclined to first give him the benefit of the doubt. And then there is the normal courtesy you give to any other admin by asking about their actions first. Even if it were simply Danny acting as an editor, it is not so important to unprotect that it needs to be done Right Now, before you've found out what's up. If he's left it a while, and still no explanation is forthcoming and there's no indication that anything is up, that's different.
WP:OFFICE is pretty much a invitation to every troll on the wiki to come and make noise -- and now, apparently, to grab the deleted material and post it elsewhere. It's been Slashdotted; we can't claim we don't know about it, and it's not exactly something we want. (Yes, good editors are questioning, too, but they are doing it sanely.) While it has been a good barrier to prevent admins from mistakenly undoing Danny's admin actions there, it has failed to be a means to handle potential problems in a discreet manner and instead only draws more attention to it. This seems to have been an attempt to try to minimize public attention and be sure the problematic material was not more widely distributed. It didn't work, but it was a reasonable attempt, though unclear.
The immediate slam of a response was harsh, and has made something seemingly intended to be low profile into more drama than even an office protection. (The response would be completely appropriate if it were explicitly an office protection; I will accept that it wasn't fully clear.) But like the protection itself, "indefinite" blocks often mean "until the situation is resolved". (I note that protections have no time limit; they're all indefinite.) A "whoa, hold on, we need to clear some things up before this goes any further" is called for in this case with the knowledge than blocks can be lifted and situations talked out.
In general: I am not opposed to the office keeping some things secret. I'm not an employee of the Foundation nor am I a lawyer, but I have an inkling of what such people do and I don't believe it is their obligation to inform me or anyone else without a direct interest about the full details of every sticky situation that comes up. If Danny acts upon a potential situation, I believe that it is legitimate without having to grill him about the exact details, as I don't think it makes any sense for him to waste his time on situations that are not, and if I stop thinking that Danny and Brad and Jimbo are acting in the best interest of the project, then there is no point in my continuing to participate. I expect to be informed where I should have a say in the outcome, but legal issues are partially what we have a Foundation *for*.
The communication could have been done better and the lack of clarity about it caused problems; experiment failed. However... Erik is reinstated and the misunderstandings cleared up, yes? The article is protected, marked WP:OFFICE, and will be cleaned and restored in due course as such usually are? Yes? Good. Now for the problem of how to handle these situations without becoming a troll magnet in the process.
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com