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
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
We are talking of two guys that are quite important for Wikimedia. And moreover of two guys that know each other. So, I just don't understand how this could have happened, and why this hasn't been settled in a private way.
Roberto (Snowdog)
Roberto Frangi wrote:
We are talking of two guys that are quite important for Wikimedia. And moreover of two guys that know each other. So, I just don't understand how this could have happened, and why this hasn't been settled in a private way.
If you review the Wikimedia Foundation's solicitation for public funds and the various project mission statements you will find there is nobody on this planet that is not quite important for Wikimedia and its projects.
Miscommunication happens all the time in human projects. The larger and more complex a project gets the greater the potential for miscommunication. Wikipedia is arguably the largest most complex project ever undertaken in human history or that will ever be undertaken in human history.
Knowing each other is not necessarily helpful. Perhaps the problem is not miscommunication but actually disagreement regarding fundamental project policy, effective methods, cultural imperatives, national law, or international conflict. Some people do not naturally get along even when they share missions, values, or previous agreements or cordiality.
I think Eric is German but I could be mistaken. As a result of some extreme conflict early in the project I do not choose to interact privately with the God King, his employees, or influential cabal members. Therefore I do know anything of Eric or Danny other than via a few public emails encountered semi randomly.
I think Danny is a Wikimedia Foundation employee and probably resides, works and is a U.S. citizen. I do not know if foundation policy allows employees to interact in Wikimedia projects via sockpuppets, anonymously, etc. If one applies the mission statements to the extreme then obviously we would not wish to subtract access to Wikimedia Foundation employees' knowledge without somehow verifying somone else knows what they know regardless of how much it improves operational efficiencies or progress towards our stated goals in the short term.
So arguably one can discern a situation might arise where one party might be subject to the U.S. Patriot Act while another party is not. One might be required by Act of Congress to keep these matters private as directed by agents of the U.S. Government allegedly acting in the National Interest while a German (or other) national might or might not be required by their government or local Patriots, freedom fighters or terrorist organizations to comply with arbitrary dictates of U.S. officials acting in violoation of their oaths to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.
Disregarding the above high level issues let's go back to an easier case of a simple conflict between Foundation policy mandated (perhaps privately or unilaterally) by the God-King (or his lawyer or a warrant from U.S. secret police citing national defense and the U.S. Patriot act) and some other community participant. If the root cause of the conflict appears to either party to be fundamental and likely to crop up again in the future then one party might prefer to discuss it in public.
If one party has found the other party to be unlikely to engage fairly in private discussion (by that party's personal standards or that party's interpretation of the published standards of the Wikimedia community) then they might prefer a public discussion to bring some third party influence and/or accountability into the negotiations or discussions.
If you require further complicating factors, imagineering, or rampant speculation to gain insight regarding how this type of situation might happen feel free to change the email subject in your reply and we can continue this discussion on another thread to avoid confusing the specifics of this situation with abstract discussion of human or legal factors that might affect public policy at Wikimedia projects.
Incidentally, an easy answer obviously is embodied in the assume good faith policy. This works well to shut up neophytes in initial debates. It does not work so well with experienced community members who have a personal or public data base to consult if assuming good faith has not worked out well in the past.
Also of possible interest can be comparisons of public and private databases.
Regards, lazyquasar
What I find the most mistifying up to this date is no word of "prince" Danny himself. Shouldn't he at least have said something here. Everybody is speculating here. But what kind of use is it if Danny keeps being protected no matter what he does. and if he keeps being allowed to decide singlehandedly like over my stewardship which he took under cover of temporary destewardship and it will be debated. Now he refuses any debate about it and he told me : If it is up to me you never ebcome steward because you are an idiot. Danny is acting solitary more and more and is abusing his position.
Waerth/Walter
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org