'Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikipedia-l
Subject:    Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping
From:       sannse <sannse () tiscali ! co ! uk>
Date:       2006-04-19 20:12:51
Message-ID: 444699C3.6030301 () tiscali ! co ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]

This is likely going to be a duplicate, but I think Brad's mail may have 
got stuck (if he isn't subscribed fully to this list) and I wanted to 
make sure it got through quickly....

sannse

Patrick, Brad wrote:
> Greetings:
> 
> I am the attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation in the US.  I work for
> the Board.  Among my responsibilities is keeping the Foundation out of
> legal trouble and responding to lawsuits, actual and threatened.  I have
> had a long chat with Eric Moeller about the circumstances that resulted
> in his ban (since reverted by someone Being Bold).  I also believe that
> the misunderstanding, although in good faith, still presented a risk to
> the Foundation.  
> 
> The issue of blocked articles is a complex one, and in many instances
> can be the visible result of careful consideration on the part of
> Foundation board members, staff, and other admins/bureaucrats/sysops who
> have knowledge of the facts and circumstances.  Often the community at
> large will not have any idea what the facts and underlying
> considerations are.  Not everything that involves Wikipedia is public,
> nor should it be.  The typical user or admin doesn't have all the pieces
> of the puzzle.  Don't let hubris get the better of you.
> 
> There may be those of you who have yet to experience the American legal
> system in any fashion, save for a movie or two.  Dealing with lawsuits
> is what I do for a living.  Avoiding them is also what I do for a
> living.  My job is to make sure that the Foundation has the best legal
> advice and best options open to it to keep things running smoothly, and
> to not land in court unless all other avenues have been exhausted.
> 
> The WP:OFFICE policy is still in its infancy.  People will challenge it
> through their words and actions.  Everyone is entitled to his or her
> opinion.  But I believe everyone who believes in the future success and
> sustainability of the project must also recognize the need for judicious
> use of confidentiality at the Foundation level.  The Foundation officers
> and Board members have a fiduciary obligation to the organization, as I
> do as a lawyer for my client.
> 
> Certain members of the community (and notably, not Mr. Moeller) have
> expressed dissatisfaction about WP:OFFICE and its use.  There is a
> healthy debate yet to be had about it.  We can have that debate, but I
> also have to make clear that the Foundation's obligations are greater
> than loyalty to any one user.  Even someone with the history of
> contributions to Mr. Moeller.
> 
> -BradPatrick  
> 
> 
> Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
> Fowler White Boggs Banker
> 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
> Suite 1700
> Tampa, FL  33602-5239
> bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:57 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; English Wikipedia;
> wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny
> 
> I have been a Wikipedian since 2001 and a MediaWiki developer since
> 2002. I was Chief Research Officer of the Foundation from May to August
> 2005. I initiated two of Wikimedia's projects, Wikinews and the
> Wikimedia Commons, and have made vital contributions to both. I have
> made roughly 15,000 edits to the English Wikipedia, and uploaded about
> 15,000 files to Wikimedia Commons. A list of my overall contributions
> can be found at
> 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence
> 
> and the linked to pages; this does not include my numerous international
> activities such as conference speeches, as well as my book and articles
> about Wikipedia. I have never been blocked before, nor have I ever been
> subject to an Arbitration Committee ruling (in fact, I was one of
> Jimmy's original suggestions for the first ArbCom, and one of the people
> who proposed that very committee).
> 
> I have just been indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia, and
> desysopped, by user Danny, under the new nickname "Dannyisme", as an
> "Office Action" for alleged "reckless endangerment" which was not
> specified further. I have called Danny on the phone, but he said that he
> was not willing to discuss the issue, and that I should instead talk to
> the Foundation attorney instead. To my knowledge, this is the first time
> office authority has been used to indefinitely block and desysop a user.
> 
> What happened?
> 
> Yesterday, Danny radically shortened and protected two pages,
> [[Newsmax.com]] and [[Christopher Ruddy]]. The protection summary was
> "POV qualms" (nothing else), and there was only the following brief
> comment on Talk:NewsMax.com:
> 
> "This article has been stubbed and protected pending resolution of POV
> issues. Danny 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"
> 
> There was no mention of WP:OFFICE in the edit summary or on the talk
> page. Danny did not apply the special Office template, {{office}}, nor
> did he use the "Dannyisme" account that he created for Foundation
> purposes, nor did he list the page on WP:OFFICE. Instead, he applied the
> regular {{protected}} template.
> 
> Given that Danny has now more explicitly emphasized this distinction
> between his role as a Foundation employee and a regular wiki user, I
> assumed he was acting here as a normal sysop and editor, and unprotected
> the two pages, with a brief reference to the protection policy. I also
> asked Danny, on [[Talk:NewsMax.com]], to make it explicit whether the
> protection was under WP:OFFICE. I would not have reprotected, of course,
> if he had simply said that they were, and left it at that.
> 
> I apologize if this action was perceived as "reckless", but I must
> emphasize that I was acting in good faith, and that I would much
> appreciate it if all office actions would be labeled as such. I was
> under the impression that this was the case given past actions. In any
> case, I think that the indefinite block and desysopping is very much an
> overreaction, and would like to hereby publicly appeal to Danny, the
> community and the Board (since Danny's authority is above the
> ArbCom) to restore my editing privileges as well as my sysop status. I
> pledge to be more careful in these matters in the future.
> 
> Thanks for reading,
> 
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \
>  Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this \
> transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, \
> nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding \
> penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of \
> 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of \
> or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this \
> message.  
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of \
> avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury \
> requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements \
> under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees \
>                 involved. 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \
>  Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private \
> communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain \
> confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended \
> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any \
> use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly \
> prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then \
> delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. \
> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 