BorgHunter schrieb:
> I understand the concerns about the Office action, and how it may have
> posed a legal threat to Wikimedia. The issue at stake here, however, is
> not "Was the Office action justified?" Rather, I think the problem was,
> at a fundamental level, communication. Along the way, it was failed to
> be communicated that the action in question was indeed an Office action.
> Thus, it was acted upon as if it was not.
And then it is okay to revert another admin's actions without even
asking before? This seems to me a problem of lack of good faith an admin
should assume.
If Wikimedia feels the need to
> issue such an action, should it not be clearly labeled to avoid that
> very legal threat to Wikipedia that Danny was attempting to avoid in the
> first place? I hope that all involved have learned from the experience,
> but I don't think that Erik constitutes a continued threat. His action
> was borne of misunderstanding, and actions against him to prevent
> further threats are, now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up,
> unnecessary.
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.
> I don't think anyone is questioning the legitimacy of the
> Office action here, but I think we all are concerned that a
> misunderstanding led to all this. Again, I ask: Should Office actions
> not be labeled explicitly as such?
It is often better to play things low and not on an official level. I
don't know if this was the case here.
greetings,
elian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> I understand the concerns about the Office action, and how it may have
> posed a legal threat to Wikimedia. The issue at stake here, however, is
> not "Was the Office action justified?" Rather, I think the problem was,
> at a fundamental level, communication. Along the way, it was failed to
> be communicated that the action in question was indeed an Office action.
> Thus, it was acted upon as if it was not.
And then it is okay to revert another admin's actions without even
asking before? This seems to me a problem of lack of good faith an admin
should assume.
If Wikimedia feels the need to
> issue such an action, should it not be clearly labeled to avoid that
> very legal threat to Wikipedia that Danny was attempting to avoid in the
> first place? I hope that all involved have learned from the experience,
> but I don't think that Erik constitutes a continued threat. His action
> was borne of misunderstanding, and actions against him to prevent
> further threats are, now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up,
> unnecessary.
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.
> I don't think anyone is questioning the legitimacy of the
> Office action here, but I think we all are concerned that a
> misunderstanding led to all this. Again, I ask: Should Office actions
> not be labeled explicitly as such?
It is often better to play things low and not on an official level. I
don't know if this was the case here.
greetings,
elian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l