[Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

Thu Apr 20 14:20:35 UTC 2006

On 4/20/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at 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