On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
Erik is acting as an officer, not as an individual.
Brandon, it is not as clear-cut as you suggest, and the lack of clarity originates at the Wikimedia Foundation.
The most explicit statement I've seen on this topic is then-Executive Director Sue Gardner, in April 2014:
"When WMF staff edit the projects, they (we) are subject to the same policies and guidelines as everybody else. That means that if a staff person breaks a rule on the projects, that person risks being warned or reverted or sanctioned by the community, the same as everybody. There are no special WMF policies related to this. ... Editorial policies are developed, and therefore also best-understood and best-enforced, not by the WMF but by the community."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/071161.html
A decision about how the public consumes Wikipedia content (e.g., Media Viewer) is an editorial decision, and it's one that the WMF has chosen to make unilaterally. WMF has furthermore moved to give its staff rights that facilitate unilateral behavior in the future. But to the degree that Sue Gardner's policy remains in place (and I'm assuming it does), the WMF's position is that any problematic actions taken by individual staff should be subject to community processes.
As I explained in the email thread linked above, I do think this is the wrong policy, and very unsuited to the way Wikimedia works or should work. But it is the policy, nonetheless. Individual WMF staff have crossed important lines, fundamentally challenging our decision-making structure without seeking, much less securing, important buy-in. The WMF will ultimately be accountable for the consequences; but in the meantime, the individuals involved in the decision must be treated as responsible for their actions, specifically because that is what the Office of the Executive Director has stated as its expectation.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]