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.
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
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@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@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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
<snip> None of this explains why the action that Eloquence was blocked for undoing was not marked as an office action.
On 4/19/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
None of this explains why the action that Eloquence was blocked for undoing was not marked as an office action.
I would presume simple human error until shown otherwise.
In fact, the whole affair smacks of error and misunderstanding, and I would be surprised if there were much else in the way of motives behind all of this.
-Matt
I'm trying to figure out why Danny *removed* the {{office}} taghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/NewsMax.com(sorry, sysops only) if this was an office action, and am also curious about Danny's statement that his admin actions are essentially always on WP:OFFICE modehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Splash&diff=prev&oldid=49018307. If this is all within policy guidelines, then [[WP:OFFICE]] should be changed to reflect that all actions by Danny, whether he mentions it or not, are considered unrevertable Office actions.
FWIW, I think the more prudent course of action is to say that all Office actions will be marked as such in both edit summary and page-tagging, and to give Eloquence Wiki access back. Considering Danny's actions look like he was distancing himself from WP:OFFICE, it seems pretty clear how Eloquence could think that this was not an office action.
Ben
* sannse wrote:
Patrick, Brad wrote:
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.
Thanks for the explanation. However, I think the view of this as a conflict between 'the Foundation's obligations' and 'one user' is inherently incorrect.
Eric did not knowingly act against the 'obligations of the Foundation'... there was no notice of such obligations being involved in the situation, despite the existence of established procedures for doing so.
This isn't about 'loyalty to one user', but the need for discretion in how users in general are treated. There should not be 'retaliation' for actions the user could have no way of knowing imposed some form of 'risk' on the Foundation. If there is risk then notice should be given under the 'WP:OFFICE' policy. If there is some reason that such notice can't be given globally then the individual user should be told not to repeat the action.
Handing down 'punishment' for violation of undeclared restrictions simply seems capricious... and concerns far more than 'one person'. I don't know Eric and thus have no especial 'loyalty' to him... but this matter is still a grave concern to me and to others.
Defend the Foundation by all means... just don't unneccessarily 'punish' your volunteers in the process. Whatever the situation here an 'OFFICE' notification or quiet word to Eric could have covered it.