In response to Johntex:
>> Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the
importance
>> of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any
> rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy. I guess
>> maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.
TonySidaway said:
>This is uncalled for.
Tony, I have to disagree. The attorney works for the foundation, not the
other way around. Critiquing whether or not he speaks to the question at
hand is perfectly fair. All he did was say, we need "WP:Office". Fine.
Let's follow WP:Office, but that means all of us.
TonySidaway said:
>I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards
>Danny's office actions like moths to a flame. No wonder he doesn't
>want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones.
That is no justification. Doing things on the sly is the way to attract
INCREASING criticism. I'm a perfect example, I've never had any complaint
about any WP:OFFICE action untill this.
TonySidaway said:
>This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just
>isn't enough. The rules are not an end in themselves.
I agree here in principle that results are more important than process. But
the results here are all bad: A good admin got desysopped unfairly,
massively additional attention was drawn to this than if the rules had been
followed, WP:OFFICE takes it on the chin, etc. Therefore, saying the ends
justified the means is no good argument in this case.
-Johntex
It seems to me that Danny should have marked his action as WP:OFFICE if he
meant it to carry the weight of an office action. Not only did he leave off
the WP:Office label, he also left a misleading Talk page summary: "This
article has been stubbed and protected pending resolution of POV issues."
That is very misleading and misleading the community is not a good way to
build trust or goodwill.
There should be no such thing as an office action that cannot be advertised
as an office action. No one is asking Danny to explain WHY the office
action has to be taken. Just tell us it IS an office action so we know not
to revert it.
Asking people to be mind readers is just wrong.
It's perfectly fine to suggest that maybe Eloquence should have contacted
Danny BEFORE reverting, not after. But if we are going to hold Eloquence to
that standard, then we should hold Danny to it as well. That means that
Danny should have contacted Eloquence before he banned him and de-sysopped
him.
Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the importance
of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any
rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy. I guess
maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.
-Johntex
For reasons I don't exactly understand, this message was sent directly
to me, rather than to the list. I'm forwarding it as requested. I
have no further comment.
Jesse Weinstein
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Ruminations Realist <ruminations_of_a_racial_realist(a)yahoo.com>
> Date: April 19, 2006 5:58:45 PM PDT
> To: jessw(a)netwood.net
> Subject: POSSIBLE SPAM Re: [WikiEN-l] Indefinite block and desysopping
> by User:Danny
>
> Hi
>
> I am a new wikipedia user - I was blocked within about 5 minutes of
> editing although I did not post anything offensive -.I simply added
> links to a few multiracial entries as follows:
>
> * [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Black_and_Biracial/'''Black and
> Biracial''': For people who identify as/ are identified as Black who
> happen to be biracial.]
>
> My user name "Ruminations of a Racial Realist" corresponds to the name
> of my blog on race, racism and racial identity... There are actually
> two definitions of racial realist included in your encyclopedia - my
> blog correspondes to the second defintion...however, I would be happy
> to change my user name if this is considered inappropriate.
>
> I am having difficulties contacting the person who blocked me - could
> you advise me or forward this messge to someone who could help?
>
> Thanks.
Hi
Could someone explain why I was blocked. I simply added links to a few multiracial entries as follows:
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Black_and_Biracial/'''Black and Biracial''': For people who identify as/ are identified as Black who happen to be biracial.]
My user name "Ruminations of a Racial Realist" corresponds to the name of my blog on race, racism and racial identity... There are actually two definitions of racial realist included in your encyclopedia - my blog correspondes to the second defintion...however, I would be happy to change my user name if this is considered inappropriate.
Thanks.
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
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
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(a)fowlerwhite.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)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(a)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(a)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.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
>Just ask yourself: if Georgia (US state) was not, in
>fact, a US state,
>but an Australian state, or a British county, or ...
>whatever ... would
>we have had all those arguments? I suspect it would
>indeed have been
>"obvious beyond words" if the grand ol' US of A
wasn't >involved.
To back up Mark's point with a concrete example,
[[Victoria]] has had no controversy, despite the
Australian state getting far less prominence on that
page than it deserves.
Always amazed by how much energy this particular
debate consumes though. Who really cares about
primacy, the other page is only a click away....
Pcb21
___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/msg/9f1da2e6d4ad21f3?…
Wikipedia and the CIA - How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia,
Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens
Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the
Internet
The text actually made my day.
Mathias
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made
of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts
is not necessarily science.
-- Henri Poincaire
Now apply this to Wikipedia:
s/science/article/
QED.
--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP