geni wrote:
On 4/19/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)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