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.
Indeed. And that is part of the problem with the English Wikipedia right now: it has become acceptable to revert admins without discussion. Attempts to declare a policy against such behavior have been met with considerable resistance; most admins want to give people a few "free shots" (one revert a day, one revert a week, various other policies that would tolerate low-level wheel warring, etc.). It is my impression that most of our admins have a broad sense of entitlement, without the corresponding sense of responsibility that should go with it. It's along the lines of "Assume good faith for me, but not for you", which is another cultural issue that enwiki is having problems with, to be honest (whch is another issue that comes back to the pervasive culture of entitlement on enwiki).
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.
I also find it very hard to believe that Erik was acting in good faith. I remain utterly perplexed by many of the comments in this discussion, especially the ones from members of the Board, who I would normally expect to refrain from contradicting their valued employee so obviously; normally when a valued high-visibility employee makes a mistake (and I am not saying that Danny did) the public statement comes in the form of a carefully worded press release from the organization as an entity, not as offhand rebuking comments from random Board members, and normally the affected employee is informed in advance. But I guess I'm used to a more professional approach from a leading non-profit organization.
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.
I can't say much more than that I agree wholeheartedly with the above comments.
Kelly