By way of introduction, however, I would like to argue that Erik has consistently sought full and ultimate power over Wikimedia for himself and himself alone. During the Board election in which Erik was first elected, Florence relayed the following to me:
Anthere2: there was something odd at some point
Anthere2: he said he wanted to be CEO/chair
I told him I disagreed and explain why
he then said
I do not want power, I have my own foundation to build
and
then , I must be the board member in charge of the strategy and the CEO
Anthere2: I said "the strategy is in the hands of board entirely; not one person"
Anthere2: and "it would be stupid to define the strategy along, then apply it"
but he disagree and thinks he can handle the job
In case you are wondering who "he" is, this is from a related chat:
dannyisme: what else ?
he talked about me becommming president
BUT
in the long run, him being chair/CEO of the Foundation
dannyisme: i assume you told brad all of this when you spoke to him
roughly, that's about it
no
I told him only one thing
Anthere2: [03:09] I had Erik for two hours on the phone today
Anthere2: [03:09] he told me something a bit amazing
BradP: [03:09] Did he ask you to vote Jimmy off the island yet?
[03:09] well, many things, but one related to Amgine
[03:09] yes, of course
BradP: [03:09] (I'm not kidding)
[03:09] of course he asked me
[03:09] nothing new, right ?
that's all we discussed
In case you are wondering who "he" is, this is from a related chat:
And now for the email:
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:25:21 EDT
Subject: Re: About what happened yesterday
I think your email warrants a response. There is certainly a huge
amount of hysteria in this particular instance. Perhaps it is worth
reviewing the entire case to understand what happened. I trust that
privacy will be maintained.
1. This week, the Foundation received a legal threat, termed by Brad
"the most serious legal threat we have received so far." The basis of
this threat was the statement by a very serious Florida-based group
with a very serious New York attorney that the Wikimedia Foundation
alone is legally liable for the actions of its admins, as they are
working on behalf of the Foundation.
2. In other words, we are acting as publisher, rather than as bulletin
board, negating the basis of any legal protection we might
have--anywhere.
3. Brad, myself, and a very small handful of En admins were aware of this.
4. At Brad's request, the two articles in question were stubbed and
protected. Brad wanted this to be done specifically by me, as an
employee of the Foundation, and not as an admin, which would feed into
the argument of those threatening us. The nature of the threat was,
and is, to be kept highly confidential. While the threat may have been
resolved in this instance, it could be used again, and we do NOT as
yet have a satisfactory answer to it.
5. WP:OFFICE was left off the article protection intentionally.
Suffice it to see the history of the WP:OFFICE page or the history of
articles where this was previously used ([[Jack Thompson (attorney)]],
for instance) to understand the attention that WP:OFFICE draws to
articles. This was done in consultation with Brad and the other En
admins who were aware of the circumstances and approved, after the
fact, by Jimmy.
6. Two admins, Conti and flcceloguy, attempted to put a WP:OFFICE tag
on the article. It was removed and they were left with emails
explaining that this was an extenuating circumstance. They both
accepted this in private emails.
7. Yesterday afternoon, Erik entered the debate by unblocking the
article and stating emphatically that there were no grounds for it to
be protected.
8. This was discussed with Brad. At that time, there was no doubt in
our minds that Erik was acting recklessly to score a point and win
himself credit as a community hero against the ogre that is the
Foundation. It was felt that Erik, given his past history with the
Foundation, his supposed understanding of sensitive issues, and his
knack for histrionics, was attempting to make a much bigger point than
he claims, i.e., him v. WMF. I still have no doubt that this was the
case.
9. I was instructed by Brad to "Nuke him." This was then approved by
Jimbo and done. Jimbo's response was that it was bound to come to a
head at some point with Erik.
10. Erik then called the Foundation office. I told him that I am not
in a position to answer him and instructed him to call Brad.
11. Erik then posted to the various lists, claiming victimhood.
12. Only then did Erik speak with Brad. I do not know who called who,
but this was only after Erik had posted to the lists. By then he had
kicked up a shit storm. I believe that this was his second reckless
action. He complained publicly first, and asked questions later.
13. Brad spoke with Erik, and it was "agreed" that Erik had acted
recklessly. They (Brad and Erik) then agreed that Erik should have his
ban reduced to 48 hours. I did this.
14. By now the genie had been let out of the bottle. Jimbo panicked,
and removed Erik's ban after this had been negotiated with Brad. He
sent us an email marked Confidential in which he claimed
simultaneously that Erik was acting in good faith, and that he was
challenginig the Foundation and acting recklessly.
15. Shit continued to hit the fan on the mailing list.
16. Most recently, Angela and Anthere have restored Erik's admin
status on En and Meta respectively. Neither of them have bothered to
investigate what happened. Jimbo is noticeably silent.
Do I have regrets? Yes. I wonder, but am not convinced, whether
WP:OFFICE should have been used. As I see it, this was a no-win
situation. Erik played it for what it was worth. As a result, Brad's
position is being challenged, and the position that Openness rather
than Responsibility has gained a boost and a "martyr." It is ironic
that this comes at a time when En is caught up discussing whether one
or more admins are leaking confidential and potentially compromising
admin information to an anti-Wikipedia website (see the WikiEN mailing
list). The argument against it--admins are "trusted users."
I will not go public with this. There is too much at stake here for
the Foundation. I can deal with a bunch of users saying I am an
asshole, and prefer that to divulging the confidential nature of the
potential threat. I am more concerned that by the slap in the face
that Brad received from Jimbo, Angela, and Anthere, by revoking the
compromise he had reached with Erik--Erik had accepted some
responsibility, and they absolved him. Nor will I apologize to Erik,
who, I firmly believe, acted recklessly for purposes of
self-aggrandizement at the expense of the Foundation.
Danny
18 comments:
Personally, I'm offended that Erik could act in such a manner and then later be not only allowed to /continue/ serving on the board, but is now in the ED's department.
Shouldn't such behavior and feelings come under scrutiny?
Danny, you mentioned that you clued-in Conti and flcceloguy with an email when they edited the article. Did you do the same for Erik before "nukeing" him ?
Danny, if you didn't personally inform Erik what was going on before nuking him, then you acted in an incompetent and unprofessional manner and are mostly to blame for the subsequent shit storm.
Actually, I was acting on direct instructions from Brad and Jimmy, and I think it would be incumbent on them to inform him, rather than have me do the dirty work while they ditch the consequences. What the above email fails to mention is this posting on User:Splash's page, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Splash/Archive14&diff=prev&oldid=49018307) in which I indicated that the action was to be interpreted as office. I posted there in response to the many private queries about the page. Erik made no such query. In fact, of all people, he should have been aware of the sensitivity of the issue. As his own email states (see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044084.html), he had served in various capacities on Wikipedia and, if memory serves me, he was living with a Board member (Angela) at the time. While it was not my decision, he should have known better. I refer to Jimbo's quote that it was "bound to come to a head with Erik" at some point.
What more, Erik and I eventually resolved the issue between ourselves. In fact, there were some pictures taken of the occasion when he learned the truth of what happened: see http://www.flickr.com/photos/fuzheado/303263273/. Erik stated this explicitly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny#Office_Incident where he says: "I'm saying he did not necessarily have the freedom of action you attribute to him.--Eloquence* 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"
Actually, I was acting on direct instructions from Brad and Jimmy, and I think it would be incumbent on them to inform him, rather than have me do the dirty work while they ditch the consequences.
... and ...
"I'm saying he did not necessarily have the freedom of action you attribute to him.--Eloquence* 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"
A few things, Danny:
*First you didn't answer my question.
*Second, you had no problem communicating with Conti and flcceloguy, but you didn't bother to do so with Erik? Is there some reason why? Your long and rambling reply full of obfuscation and diversion doesn't clearly say.
So, could you please explain why you extended communication to Conti and flcceloguy when they edited the article, but held out on Erik?
As I stated, I was acting on instructions from my bosses. As Erik said, I did not necessarily have the "freedom of action" you seem to attribute to me. Furthermore, unlike them, Erik had the benefit of my post to Splash's pages, as I mentioned before. Given the circumstances, Erik should have considered WP:POINT and WP:DE. Having said that, I would like to ask, "What could Erik have done differently?"
Good question. Obviously Erik should have talked to you before tinkering with your actions, even more so than your duty to communicate with him afterwards.
So don't get me wrong, I'm not picking sides. But really, Danny, do you expect people to believe you were free to communicate with Conti and flcceloguy but actively prevented from doing so with Erik?
Come on, Danny, get real.
I am glad, first of all, that you see the blame was not one-sided here. Let's take it a step further. Given that I had already posted on Splash's page that the article was not to be tinkered with, and given that Erik was aware of that and was simply complaining of the decision not to use the controversial OFFICE tag, don't you think the responsibility lay with him to check out what had really happened. This would have been especially easy since he was living with a Board member at the time. In fact, once such a decision as "nuke him" was made, don't you think it is up to the person who made the decision (in this case, Brad) to step in and speak to Erik first?
In fact, Erik seems to have understood this, as the following email to me, dated April 9, attests:
Thanks for your kind words also -- I was indeed not clear to me whether my actions had anything to do with your resignation.
I would have liked to see you remain on staff -- while things _are_ admittedly crazy right now, I am keeping the pressure on to reach some sane state of affairs within days, not weeks. And at least some level craziness was difficult to avoid; when I joined the Board I certainly did not expect that we would have to fire our interim ED! :-(
I think you do have a fair shot at a Board seat, though, which would be interesting as well. :-)
Fire Brad? I was under the impression he had stepped down.
...here ends the lesson. Let us continue our worship with a moment of silence (for Brad)...
Greg: Just for my own clarification, can you further explain your last comment. I'm left wondering what you mean. (No offense meant, just for my own understanding). Thanks.
I am glad, first of all, that you see the blame was not one-sided here.
Huh? did I say the blame was one sided? I think you both behaved like idiots.
...I had already posted on Splash's...
And how was Erik supposed to know to look on Splash's page? Telepathy?
... was simply complaining of the decision not to use the controversial OFFICE tag, don't you think the responsibility lay with him to check out what had really happened
Of course it did, just like it was your responsibility to act like an adult and communicate, like you did with the other admins who edited that page.
In fact, once such a decision as "nuke him" was made, don't you think it is up to the person who made the decision (in this case, Brad) to step in and speak to Erik first?
Why didn't you try talking to him before going to Brad for the nuclear option, like you did for the other admins who edited that page?
Really, Danny, this is like the third time I've asked this question, and you answers keep getting longer and saying less.
It's a simple question.
From where I stand, you acted like a spoiled little brat having a temper tantrum. Your manor was incompetent and unprofessional and caused this big "shit storm", where a responsible adult would have avoided it.
It is unfortunate that you resort to name-calling when discussing this, since it detracts from the substance of the discussion. In response, I would suggest that you check Erik's edit summary and talk page comments to determine whether he knew of the problem. As for asking Brad, given the complexity of the issue, I was instructed to inform him if anyone tampers with the page. It was relatively effortless to do too, as he sat less than six feet away from me.
Hallelujah, there is a god - and Danny has seen the light!
You are right, name-calling is bad.
Sometimes a person can't simply be told what they need to hear; instead, they have to be led to make the observation themselves.
I happen to agree with Danny, Mr. Anonymous.
The way I see it is this:
1) Danny did an action for the Foundation.
2) Two uninvolved admins tried to "help," not understanding the situation. When explained privately, they backed off.
3) Erik comes in, and takes an action. Granted, he might've not known the specfics, but he should know enough to not interfere with what is obviously an WP:OFFICE act (if not in name, then in face)
4) Erik cries when he gets in trouble.
Seems to me Erik's the jerk, not Danny. Danny was just doing his job.
"the Wikimedia Foundation
alone is legally liable for the actions of its admins, as they are
working on behalf of the Foundation.
2. In other words, we (WMF) are acting as publisher, rather than as bulletin
board, negating the basis of any legal protection we might
have--anywhere"
If the primary cause of the problem is that the WMF might be seen to be a publisher and not a bb host. And this storm in a teacup is based around the inexperience of WMF in handling their litigious countrymen, who always will be; what policy, or process, has it put in place to handle this next time?
Couldn't tell you, as I am not legal counsel. However, as an employee, it was my responsibility to trust the judgment of legal counsel.
Post a Comment