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

Wed Apr 19 20:23:07 UTC 2006

I could be wrong, and of course maybe I'm also doing a little tea-leaf
reading here, but...

My impression of this is that the foundation's hard-line on desysopping
people who undo an admin action taken by a representative of the WMF is that
it's intended to send a message:  Don't wheel war -- in fact, don't even
revert once -- someone who might even potentially be acting to represent the
foundation in a matter that they've deemed sensitive in some way.

I don't see what's so unreasonable about this.  To me, it's better to ask
first, revert/undo later, than the reverse, given the real-world
implications in admin actions performed by people like Danny.  I have no
doubt that Erik was acting in good faith, and I'd support restoring his
privileges, but folks should consider this an object lesson I think in
understanding that championing "the wiki way" doesn't trump averting real
legal entanglements.

k

On 4/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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 at fowlerwhite.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:57 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; English Wikipedia;
> > wikipedia-l at 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 at 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 at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>