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

Thu Apr 20 15:45:31 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
>
> BirgitteSB

I agree with Birgitte here, and I've left in the whole post because
I'm responding to all of it.

First of all, English WP has been in a bit of upheaval lately about
undiscussed reversal of admin actions, so it should be on someone's
mind even without knowing that it is Danny.

Secondly: Erik is an intelligent person who generally knows what's up.
I would think seeing Danny protect a page and want to lay low about it
would be a hint to wait for more information to be clear first. Danny
is not generally one to stub and protect articles simply because he
doesn't like them, and knows well enough that what he did is outside
normal procedure. Why this one? And Erik is not generally one to go
about monitoring page protections. Why this one?

Even unmarked: when I see something fishy, done by a steward, a
longtime contributor, and an employee of the Foundation, and he seems
hesitant to talk about it, I am inclined to first give him the benefit
of the doubt. And then there is the normal courtesy you give to any
other admin by asking about their actions first. Even if it were
simply Danny acting as an editor, it is not so important to unprotect
that it needs to be done Right Now, before you've found out what's up.
If he's left it a while, and still no explanation is forthcoming and
there's no indication that anything is up, that's different.

WP:OFFICE is pretty much a invitation to every troll on the wiki to
come and make noise -- and now, apparently, to grab the deleted
material and post it elsewhere. It's been Slashdotted; we can't claim
we don't know about it, and it's not exactly something we want. (Yes,
good editors are questioning, too, but they are doing it sanely.)
While it has been a good barrier to prevent admins from mistakenly
undoing Danny's admin actions there, it has failed to be a means to
handle potential problems in a discreet manner and instead only draws
more attention to it. This seems to have been an attempt to try to
minimize public attention and be sure the problematic material was not
more widely distributed. It didn't work, but it was a reasonable
attempt, though unclear.

The immediate slam of a response was harsh, and has made something
seemingly intended to be low profile into more drama than even an
office protection. (The response would be completely appropriate if it
were explicitly an office protection; I will accept that it wasn't
fully clear.) But like the protection itself, "indefinite" blocks
often mean "until the situation is resolved". (I note that protections
have no time limit; they're all indefinite.) A "whoa, hold on, we need
to clear some things up before this goes any further" is called for in
this case with the knowledge than blocks can be lifted and situations
talked out.

In general: I am not opposed to the office keeping some things secret.
I'm not an employee of the Foundation nor am I a lawyer, but I have an
inkling of what such people do and I don't believe it is their
obligation to inform me or anyone else without a direct interest about
the full details of every sticky situation that comes up. If Danny
acts upon a potential situation, I believe that it is legitimate
without having to grill him about the exact details, as I don't think
it makes any sense for him to waste his time on situations that are
not, and if I stop thinking that Danny and Brad and Jimbo are acting
in the best interest of the project, then there is no point in my
continuing to participate. I expect to be informed where I should have
a say in the outcome, but legal issues are partially what we have a
Foundation *for*.

The communication could have been done better and the lack of clarity
about it caused problems; experiment failed. However... Erik is
reinstated and the misunderstandings cleared up, yes? The article is
protected, marked WP:OFFICE, and will be cleaned and restored in due
course as such usually are? Yes? Good. Now for the problem of how to
handle these situations without becoming a troll magnet in the
process.

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage  |  G/AIM:LucidWaking
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
-- Lao-Tzu        Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com