On 4/19/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:

I very much rescind this statement. Apparently the Foundation's obligations are so important that going against them is ground for desysopping and blocking, whereas loyalty to users is not even important enough to tell them in advance what actions will lead to an indefinite ban. It makes me wonder why on earth I am still cooperating with this.

Indefinitely doesn't mean forever. Indefinite means "we'll lift it when it's safe to do so".

If, on the other hand, you want to prevent the Foundation from being able to defend itself against legal threats, then by all means take away the ability of the Foundation to respond to legal threats. People who put themselves into harm's way will get run over from time to time. You can safely assume that anything Danny does that appears difficult to explain is probably him responding to a legal threat in some way, since that's basically all he does anymore. They are *that* frequent.

Kelly

On 4/20/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:

I have not followed the details of this, but I will tell you what I think in general terms. I am amazed how many people have written this list with the underlying idea that it is proper to immediately revert the admin action of *any* other admin without disscusiion. I think that in itself would deserve some sort of reprimand, and shows unsuitability as an admin.

Indeed. And that is part of the problem with the English Wikipedia right now: it has become acceptable to revert admins without discussion. Attempts to declare a policy against such behavior have been met with considerable resistance; most admins want to give people a few "free shots" (one revert a day, one revert a week, various other policies that would tolerate low-level wheel warring, etc.). It is my impression that most of our admins have a broad sense of entitlement, without the corresponding sense of responsibility that should go with it. It's along the lines of "Assume good faith for me, but not for you", which is another cultural issue that enwiki is having problems with, to be honest (whch is another issue that comes back to the pervasive culture of entitlement on enwiki).

First Eric commits what I consider a breach of etiquette by unprotecting a page on his own. This may be just a difference in culture, but at WS we expect admins to request protection/unprotection like any other editor and a separate admin will carry out the action. So to unprotect a page on your own volition is like closing a deletion where you made the original nomination in my eyes. Next is the fact that page had *just* been protected. If it had just been done by any average admin, I would question if Eric was trying to start a wheel war at this point. Then you add the fact that the admin action was made by a *steward*, which is a highly trusted position. Now any idea the Eric is acting in good faith is very hard to believe. Do you really believe it is acceptable to revert a steward on any admin action without discussion? And on top of that Danny is a Foundation employee who often makes non-editorial decisions. I don't know how Eric could not have known he was asking for trouble.

I also find it very hard to believe that Erik was acting in good faith. I remain utterly perplexed by many of the comments in this discussion, especially the ones from members of the Board, who I would normally expect to refrain from contradicting their valued employee so obviously; normally when a valued high-visibility employee makes a mistake (and I am not saying that Danny did) the public statement comes in the form of a carefully worded press release from the organization as an entity, not as offhand rebuking comments from random Board members, and normally the affected employee is informed in advance. But I guess I'm used to a more professional approach from a leading non-profit organization.

The fact that I have seen so many responses purporting that Eric made an honest mistake only makes me certain that a strong message needed to be sent. I will not comment on the actual reprimands, because I am not familiar with what generally warrants desysoping at WP. I cannot express how surprised I am that you think Eric should get an apology. I do hope he can be repatriated to the project and that everyone who at first thought his actions where acceptable realizes their error.

I wonder sometimes whether people involved in this project, really take it seriously. This is real organization here with real concerns and a real hierarchy. We elect stewards for a reason, so that when they do something it can be trusted. We ask people like Danny to take responsibility to do the things that must be done for this organization. We must trust them.

If you do not trust the organization, work to change it on the big issues that your distrust stems from. Picking a fight with every decision however will get you no results. People will simply tune you out. Not everyone (or even many people) can be aware of the details of every decision. If this is the reason for any lack of trust, I think the problem is more with you. Because no matter who sits on the board that is not going to change.

I can't say much more than that I agree wholeheartedly with the above comments.

Kelly

Michael Davis wrote:

Kelly Martin wrote:

...

I also find it very hard to believe that Erik was acting in good faith. I remain utterly perplexed by many of the comments in this discussion, especially the ones from members of the Board, who I would normally expect to refrain from contradicting their valued employee so obviously; normally when a valued high-visibility employee makes a mistake (and I am not saying that Danny did) the public statement comes in the form of a carefully worded press release from the organization as an entity, not as offhand rebuking comments from random Board members, and normally the affected employee is informed in advance. But I guess I'm used to a more professional approach from a leading non-profit organization.

Whatever statements have been made by Board members, including this statement, are made by them as individuals and only carry whatever authority the community deems appropriate for that individual. And you are right, a more professional organization would handle these matters quite differently.

Michael

Writing a press release ?

Sure. Which level of energy and time does that require ? First, the board needs to discuss this together. See where they agree. When they agree, they should contact the comcom. Have the comcom write a press release. Put it on the board wiki. Vote. Then publish.

At the minimum, two weeks. If all goes well. In other words, forever. Needless to say that this will never get done. If only because we have other things to take care of. This might be possible in an organisation where the board has nothing to take care of other that doing a yearly meeting with petits fours and champaign. Not exactly our organisation.

The Foundation is less than 2 years old Karynn. When I consider the travel already done, I am amazed. When I joined, the Foundation was nothing. It did not existed at all. All it had was basically a couple of servers, a dozen domain names and a highly visible and appreciated president.

That was all.

Board members had to fit.

As a board member, I followed the principles which drove me as an editor. I tried to listen to people the best I could. I tried not to offend people too much. I tried to inform people as much as I could whilst respecting confidentiality when it was required. I tried to organise things when nobody was organising them. I spoke loud when no one had the guts to speak loud. And I spoke plain when no one spoke plain. I tried to give ideas.

I never claimed to be a professional. I only tried to help the best I could a project I loved and found fabulous. I would have helped more as a board member if I had been given the opportunity to act as a board member as the job is defined in more "professional" organisations. It is not the case.

The more I think about it, the more I think you guys can be very happy with a valued highly visible employee.

Ant

On 4/20/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:

I have not followed the details of this, but I will tell you what I think in general terms. I am amazed how many people have written this list with the underlying idea that it is proper to immediately revert the admin action of *any* other admin without disscusiion. I think that in itself would deserve some sort of reprimand, and shows unsuitability as an admin.

First Eric commits what I consider a breach of etiquette by unprotecting a page on his own. This may be just a difference in culture, but at WS we expect admins to request protection/unprotection like any other editor and a separate admin will carry out the action. So to unprotect a page on your own volition is like closing a deletion where you made the original nomination in my eyes. Next is the fact that page had *just* been protected. If it had just been done by any average admin, I would question if Eric was trying to start a wheel war at this point. Then you add the fact that the admin action was made by a *steward*, which is a highly trusted position. Now any idea the Eric is acting in good faith is very hard to believe. Do you really believe it is acceptable to revert a steward on any admin action without discussion? And on top of that Danny is a Foundation employee who often makes non-editorial decisions. I don't know how Eric could not have known he was asking for trouble. The fact that I have seen so many responses purporting that Eric made an honest mistake only makes me certain that a strong message needed to be sent. I will not comment on the actual reprimands, because I am not familiar with what generally warrants desysoping at WP. I cannot express how surprised I am that you think Eric should get an apology. I do hope he can be repatriated to the project and that everyone who at first thought his actions where acceptable realizes their error.

I wonder sometimes whether people involved in this project, really take it seriously. This is real organization here with real concerns and a real hierarchy. We elect stewards for a reason, so that when they do something it can be trusted. We ask people like Danny to take responsibility to do the things that must be done for this organization. We must trust them.

If you do not trust the organization, work to change it on the big issues that your distrust stems from. Picking a fight with every decision however will get you no results. People will simply tune you out. Not everyone (or even many people) can be aware of the details of every decision. If this is the reason for any lack of trust, I think the problem is more with you. Because no matter who sits on the board that is not going to change.

BirgitteSB

I agree with Birgitte here, and I've left in the whole post because I'm responding to all of it.

First of all, English WP has been in a bit of upheaval lately about undiscussed reversal of admin actions, so it should be on someone's mind even without knowing that it is Danny.

Secondly: Erik is an intelligent person who generally knows what's up. I would think seeing Danny protect a page and want to lay low about it would be a hint to wait for more information to be clear first. Danny is not generally one to stub and protect articles simply because he doesn't like them, and knows well enough that what he did is outside normal procedure. Why this one? And Erik is not generally one to go about monitoring page protections. Why this one?

Even unmarked: when I see something fishy, done by a steward, a longtime contributor, and an employee of the Foundation, and he seems hesitant to talk about it, I am inclined to first give him the benefit of the doubt. And then there is the normal courtesy you give to any other admin by asking about their actions first. Even if it were simply Danny acting as an editor, it is not so important to unprotect that it needs to be done Right Now, before you've found out what's up. If he's left it a while, and still no explanation is forthcoming and there's no indication that anything is up, that's different.

WP:OFFICE is pretty much a invitation to every troll on the wiki to come and make noise -- and now, apparently, to grab the deleted material and post it elsewhere. It's been Slashdotted; we can't claim we don't know about it, and it's not exactly something we want. (Yes, good editors are questioning, too, but they are doing it sanely.) While it has been a good barrier to prevent admins from mistakenly undoing Danny's admin actions there, it has failed to be a means to handle potential problems in a discreet manner and instead only draws more attention to it. This seems to have been an attempt to try to minimize public attention and be sure the problematic material was not more widely distributed. It didn't work, but it was a reasonable attempt, though unclear.

The immediate slam of a response was harsh, and has made something seemingly intended to be low profile into more drama than even an office protection. (The response would be completely appropriate if it were explicitly an office protection; I will accept that it wasn't fully clear.) But like the protection itself, "indefinite" blocks often mean "until the situation is resolved". (I note that protections have no time limit; they're all indefinite.) A "whoa, hold on, we need to clear some things up before this goes any further" is called for in this case with the knowledge than blocks can be lifted and situations talked out.

In general: I am not opposed to the office keeping some things secret. I'm not an employee of the Foundation nor am I a lawyer, but I have an inkling of what such people do and I don't believe it is their obligation to inform me or anyone else without a direct interest about the full details of every sticky situation that comes up. If Danny acts upon a potential situation, I believe that it is legitimate without having to grill him about the exact details, as I don't think it makes any sense for him to waste his time on situations that are not, and if I stop thinking that Danny and Brad and Jimbo are acting in the best interest of the project, then there is no point in my continuing to participate. I expect to be informed where I should have a say in the outcome, but legal issues are partially what we have a Foundation *for*.

The communication could have been done better and the lack of clarity about it caused problems; experiment failed. However... Erik is reinstated and the misunderstandings cleared up, yes? The article is protected, marked WP:OFFICE, and will be cleaned and restored in due course as such usually are? Yes? Good. Now for the problem of how to handle these situations without becoming a troll magnet in the process.

-Kat

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com

I agree entirely. Given that the devs are quite busy, perhaps something could be written up to allow this to be done with the developer flag (the one that actually shows up on Special:Listusers), so Danny could do it himself without having to either involve the developers each time, or go messing around in the database itself. A restricted access log (like the checkuser log) could be provided if desired. I have no idea if this is doable or not, but it seems like a decent proposal to me.

Essjay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Mark Ryan wrote:

On 20/04/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:

...

WP:OFFICE is pretty much a invitation to every troll on the wiki to come and make noise -- and now, apparently, to grab the deleted material and post it elsewhere. It's been Slashdotted; we can't claim we don't know about it, and it's not exactly something we want. (Yes, good editors are questioning, too, but they are doing it sanely.) While it has been a good barrier to prevent admins from mistakenly undoing Danny's admin actions there, it has failed to be a means to handle potential problems in a discreet manner and instead only draws more attention to it. This seems to have been an attempt to try to minimize public attention and be sure the problematic material was not more widely distributed. It didn't work, but it was a reasonable attempt, though unclear.

Maybe Danny etc. need to start getting developers to remove revisions of WP:OFFICE articles directly from the database, if we continue to have the problem of dirty admins leaking deleted material.

~Mark Ryan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ray Saintonge wrote:

Michael R. Irwin wrote:

...

Certainly I would advise you to comply strictly with all provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act when called upon by warrant to cooperate with U.S. Federal authorities, unless you enjoy small cubicle environments.

That's remarkably inconsistent of you. You begin by complaining about excessive secrecy then contradict yourself by supporting a piece of totalitarian trash that would impose just that, notably in forbidding people who have received information requests from letting anyone know that they have received such requests. When it comes to circumventing laws the U.S. Patriot Act is fair game.

Nothing inconsistent about it at all.

Nothing I wrote should be construed as "supporting" the totalitarian trash. If you wish to attempt to circumvent the U.S. Patriot Act; and you are a self responsible adult by the standards of your society, culture and yourself; you are welcome (from me) to attempt do so elsewhere. I advise you against it unless you enjoy anonymous occupation of small cubicle cells or have a death wish or actually believe freedom and inalienable human rights is worth a little discomfort or great personal risk. Personally I think the wikimedia projects are quite valuable and useful in undercutting the justifications used for the activation of the totalitarian trash embodied in the Patriot Act. Thus, IMHO, any contemplated acts of civil disobedience likely to bring swift and accurate reprisals from the powers that be in the U.S. are best done elsewhere away from wikimedia sponsored projects. This is true whether you, I or others are good little wikimedians just wishing to avoid trouble at any price or all out patriots just itching to score some effective points on the totalitarians currently in charge.

If you are a U.S. voter I will point out that it is likely to be more effective voting representatives into office who will take out the totalitarian trash rather than resisting smart missiles launched by the U.S. military from hundreds of miles away or secret warrants or decisions made out of view of the public, allegedly for the benefit of the U.S. public.

If you are not a U.S. citizen, I should point out that large social systems with lots of momentum often take large aggregate inputs and time to change course. A choice to actively resist U.S.G. totalitarian trash may be a life or death altering decision that is effectively irrevocable for the next few decades or centuries.

...

I suggest the community members present on the Foundation-L mailing list consider a placebo vote regarding whether the Wikimedia Foundation should issue an apology to Eric and reimburse him for the long distance calls necessary to recover his editing priveleges.

"Placebo vote" sounds like an interesting concept. I interpret such a vote as one designed to make people feel good without accomplishing anything. :-)

If it makes Eric aware that he is still a valued member of the larger local community of participants even after an alleged or actual error or two then it will have accomplished quite a bit. There is no "edit boldly" or initiative without an occasional mistake. This could probably be supported by reference to Murphy's law, thermodynamic maximization of entropy, original sin, or something if I were not feeling so lazy at the moment.

...

...

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.

Are the Wikimedia Foundation's obligations greater than loyalty to a single founder or stacked Board of Directors?

In the event of a conflict do you work for the stacked Board, Jimmy Wales, or the Foundation? Is your client the stacked Board, Jimmy Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation? What is the legal signature on checks sent to your office in response to invoices? Does U.S. and/or Florida law distinguish between individuals in offices and the organization itself?

This sounds like cross-examination to me.

It is an interesting and critical point. People unfamilar with law as it is practiced in the United States have a tendency towards gullibility when a well educated lawyer in a crisp three piece suit getting paid big bucks gives them free advice. There was an unqualified (literally, not a high school graduate IIRC) office girl who had been placed in a government management position a few years back who took her boss's (the alleged embezzler being investigated by Congress) lawyers' advice and stone walled (attempted to take the fifth, remaining silent rather than self incriminate) Congress during some hearings regarding tens or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of embezzlement and fraud. She may still be in jail for contempt of Congress. There was some loose talk about disbarring "her lawyers" for advising her to oppose Congress by citing the fifth (which apparently does not apply to Congressional hearings after Congress has granted immunity from personal prosecution) but AFAIK nothing ever came of it. It turns out that a lawyer representing his client is apparently free (of consequences) to give others poor legal advice (lie or attempt to deceive people other than his client regarding matters of law) if it serves the interests of their official paying client or some other similar self serving mumbo jumbo.

I guess frames of reference are relevent to other fields of endeaver besides physics. Are they my, our, their, the Foundation, the Board, ET's, friend of the court, other stakeholders' lawyers or merely representing their own business or personal interests?

Drat! I forgot to ask whether his firm does business with Bomis or Wikia or other businesses owned, operated or invested in by members of the stacked Board. Maybe next time.

Hmm ... also forgot to ask whether he volunteers time as an editor at any Wikimedia projects or operates any investigatory sock puppets. .... Maybe the time after the next time minus negative three or four?

I guess what I should have or could have asked is: In your professional opinion, would it reduce current or future legal liabilities and/or expenses if different guidelines (from the apparently nonexistent ones or the ones currently in use) regarding conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest were developed and implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation?

I am often highly critical of the current management format, but I can also see enough dangers in a totally democratic system to be wary of such a model.

I also would be skeptical of a "pure" "democracy" of one sock puppet one vote. I doubt it is even feasible to set up such a structure up as a U.S. liability limited non profit or for profit corporation. It is my understanding that U.S. law requires specific accountable points of contact when filing for the legal priveleges granted to regulated legal organizations. However, there is a wide range of lattitude left to the individual registered organization in the U.S. regarding how they "manage" their own affairs within the constraints of the law. The dichotomy of our current and past discussion alternating between unilateral bandwidthianism (the guy with control of the centralized editing bandwidth makes the rules) and total chaos (one sock puppet one vote) barely scratches the surface of the range of possibilities available in the good old USA.

regards, lazyquasar

Ray Saintonge wrote:

Effective resistance is more a matter of opportunity than premeditation. If I have not been served with a gag order I can't resist it. I am not one of those who would avoid trouble at any price, but manipulating circumstances for the sole purpose of spurring the patriotism police into action is still trolling.

Opportunity for martyrdom perhaps. Pretty useless unless some premediation goes into post execution or incarceration publication. Unless one buys into prayer as a universal method communications. I understand the Ayotollah's are not counting on prayer. I have seen it alleged that authentic suicide martyrs are being signed up as terrorist retalitory smart bots in inflict maximum reprisal in the event of a surprise, announced, authorised, or otherwise engaged or stealthy or alleged official and/or unofficial or plausibly denied U.S. policy enforcement action in preemptive defense of the god fearing peoples of the free world against dirty or real atomic bombs.

Clearly discussion of this responsibly takes careful preplanning if one wishes to avoid the consequence (personally) of one's actions.

Consider that terrorist maniac who assaulted an entire campus of diligent students looking both ways before crossing the street or lying down in the grass at the memorial union with an American Gas Guzzler and manage to injure an entire nine people before calling 911 to report the hit and run self alleged terrorist campaign.

When he gets done fullfilling his responsibilities to society for that premedicated attempt at mass murder maybe someone should hire him as a driver's ed teacher or a NASCAR driver. Many U.S. drivers cannot keep their vehicles sufficiently under control in posted 20 mph kiddie zones or behind schools buses to avoid manslaughter and this master of misinformation managed to injure (not kill) 9 people on a crime spree through a major U.S. college campus. On my personal fandango through the Boise International Airport I think I could have got a few if I had not created my racing friction clutch in my Mazda RX-7. Amazing how calm people can be with a 150hp rotary rocket screaming and grit grinding the clutch. Somebody was winding a turboprop up to destruction I do not think I would be confident the fan could not pull it .... at least not enough to walzt out with the kiddies and wives in tow. Maybe I could nerve myself up to risk the baggage. No need to take my word for it. There is a report somewhere because I was apprehended wandering off from the incident.

Is it cartoon physics sent down from God to protect those bible belt believers or sheer keystone incompetence resulting from reduced blood flow to the brain from winding those turbines too tight? Personally I recall the CIA recruiting on campus. It might be fun to drive over there in a special caterpillar training with the new prototype transmission which comes standard with four power take offs with couple of tanks of willy wonkas biodiesal and setup a special patriotic web transmisssion. Then watch the shock and awe as local super patriots that know how to scream at football games but can not quite drift from the sugar daddy's lines yet figure out not everyone in the crowd is a peace worshipping muslim.

If we get short on attendence we could always take some video for Lou Dobbs of authentic U.S. college graduates burning Mexican flags and walking barefoot ala Kung Fooiu over Israeli, Iranium, and Iraguis flags before sewing them together and siccing the nano weather elements on them at some International Seaport that needs modernization and publicity. Coos Bay, Oregon could use some publicity and investment capital (it is one of the largest natural seaports on the West Coast) but it is upwind from our Capital City and just incidentall my future humble abode. I therefoe benovolently propose we allow Portland to continue targeting itself for dirty bombs as the only usable economic port between Seatle and San Franscico.

Voting is premeditated in the U.S. Most places require registration in advance. This is necessary to allow the system time to prepare validation lists that can be checked by diverse (usually two, one Republican, one Democrat but sometimes I guess another party has volunteers) volunteers auditing or witnessing the voting and counting.

Interesting! I suppose if the winners of the vote are planning on executing anyone found guilty of treason or war crimes then voting might be construed by some sovereigns as premediated murder! Or would that be assassination since the sovereign voter is dispatching an employee apparatus to carry out the sentence?

It is going to be a greek tragedy if Osama Bin Laden successfully has this maniac martry who cannot find a gas peddle or a steering despite a Master's degree from the local campus assassinated or assaulted and then pins the blame on American "Patriots" or sloppy incompentent police custody. Look at that American MP executive incapable of protecting prisoneers in her custody from torturers and sadistic pregnant women. .... and we could have that on video or animate it for cash and carry primetime U.S. TV!!!! well .... subject to the needs of War on Drugs, and the War on Poverty, and the War on Colds, and the War on Rich Murderers, and the War on Aging, and the War on the Beast of the Apocylypse, and the actual alsmost declared War on Saddam Hussein, ...... I think I forgot some Wars but I guess only the rating wars really hit the bottom in any significant way and only then if the feedback loops are managed appropriately.

...

If you are a U.S. voter I will point out that it is likely to be more effective voting representatives into office who will take out the totalitarian trash rather than resisting smart missiles launched by the U.S. military from hundreds of miles away or secret warrants or decisions made out of view of the public, allegedly for the benefit of the U.S. public.

Good luck!

Used my quota already. I am a natural born U.S. citizen. Never cared much for gambling either although my parents support of the local indian tribes has replaced my letterman jacket twice over with a stealth walking jacket. When feeling paranoid strolling the starlights fantastic, when I hear critical supplies headed anywhere after hours I listen closely and prepare to exit stage orthogonal.

Engineering used to be about calculated risks ... so I was informed at Oregon State University anyway. They left out the part about local maxima and minima along other arbitrary, capricious, or self serving axis. If the game is rigged properly it is not really gambling until the games changes unexpectedly, is it? Nothing like shooting a patriot for treason because he was so good at doing his job at the front that the rear echelon heroes manage to phases changes the rules after mid morning tea and crumpets in secret in contravention of secret laws specifying late creative accounting justifying mission critical initiative. I mean one could the benefit in an appropriately managed training environment until the instructors started using their god like control of the environment to inflict dogma or brain washing on the neophytes or less mortals or generalists or other field specialists offspring and/or interests.

...

If you are not a U.S. citizen, I should point out that large social systems with lots of momentum often take large aggregate inputs and time to change course. A choice to actively resist U.S.G. totalitarian trash may be a life or death altering decision that is effectively irrevocable for the next few decades or centuries.

Those of us outside the US see these things more clearly. It's easier to see the whole forest when you're standing outside of it.

This reassuring. Did you have some specific public data that you wanted to bring to my attention? A few links should not overload the Foundation's magnificent servers .... might be good if at least a few links were applicable to the Foundations interest in all human knowledge .... actually if you could find a link outside of those interests we could contact the SETI@home folks and get some real publicity!

Perhaps "vote of confidence" might have been a better term. Entropy in a volunteer organization becomes manifest when it substitutes rules for principles.

I disagree. Rules and principles represent standard operating procedure, nothing more. A child is warned to look both ways and cross at a crosswalk. An adult strolls where he pleases but is accountable for his behavior. A stroll through a freeway that results in several hundred car pileup might be prosecuted as mass murder where as a child squashed might be prosecuted as child endangerment or vehicular homicide. In Oregon the basic rule of the road is that you are responsible for being able to halt the vehicle before hitting a stationary object.

Vote of confidence indeed. What kind of confidence is Eric going to get from a trolling sock puppet voting in his favor? Placebo was adequate even if not the best term for it previously held place in the semantic web. Now that I have modified its useage creatively (and self beneficially I might note with pride) I wonder if the term must be kept even more secret from the patient than was previously the case?

...

People unfamilar with law as it is practiced in the United States have a tendency towards gullibility when a well educated lawyer in a crisp three piece suit getting paid big bucks gives them free advice. ... It turns out that a lawyer representing his client is apparently free (of consequences) to give others poor legal advice (lie or attempt to deceive people other than his client regarding matters of law) if it serves the interests of their official paying client or some other similar self serving mumbo jumbo.

There is an element of institutionalized chutzpah to it all. Lawyers play a large role in writing laws. And what lawyer turned judge would recuse himself for conflict of interest in a case that attacks the privileges of his profession?

It's fascinating to observe how otherwise normal rebels who regularly confront elitism in the professions will still pusilanimously pepper their comments with "IANAL".

lol Personally I always considered it a fair warning. I mean you never really know if you are really talking to the master of the local universe or some precocious teenager or some government agent or 60 year old genus coasting or obsessing over important issues rather than your interests. I have encountered some barracks lawyers who talk a pretty chat as a result of hefty, detailed reading. Some of them have even seen a judge pull a technicality out of his ass or thin air or even a creative or admitted violation of law sure to overturned upon appeal .... If you want fair results you better be damn sure to do the local investigation and politicking necessary to rerig the local game within a scope you are comfortable local assets can deal with fairly if they choose to. Then you better do the background checks on key players .... then pray for whatever is needed ..... then settle if you can get "fair" or "adequate" or "better than nothing" deal.

or be a good loser

or be a good winner. Ever wonder what would happen if after winning an environmental lawsuit a major multinational did the "right thing" and issued checks for audited damages and cleaned up the damn mess? They can pay an executive hundreds of millions for effectively lying, murdering, pillaging, etc. etc. but they cannot invest a few million or tens or hundreds necessary to mitigate damage killing or damaging people, cultures, nations and even planets.

be a better winner ... pay for the heart attack victims' medical bills.

IANAL could be construed as fair warning, a proud boast (I can read even if I did not attend Harvard or Yale or secret presidential tutorials after election), or a prudent attempt to limit liability or propagate accurate information. Shorthand for check the facts for yourself.

...

Drat! I forgot to ask whether his firm does business with Bomis or Wikia or other businesses owned, operated or invested in by members of the stacked Board. Maybe next time.

Hmm ... also forgot to ask whether he volunteers time as an editor at any Wikimedia projects or operates any investigatory sock puppets. .... Maybe the time after the next time minus negative three or four?

I think that I would prefer an approach that does not make one lawyer a scapegoat for his entire industry.

Scapegoat how? He keeps saying he works for the Foundation. The Foundation by definition belongs to the God-King, he stated he was going to set it up that way and then proceeded to do so. So does he have a responsiblity to other stacked Board members or not? Do the Board Members take turns signing paychecks? Maybe they should. Maybe it would be perceived as an unusual attempt to distribute blame or responsibility in a premeditated fashion .... thus increasing legal risks in an already possibly hazardous situation.

The situation in America is fraught with hazards for business. We usually do not firebomb the bastards, we usually try to drop a quarter (or silver dollar or email) on them or call a lawyer. We are the most litiginous society on Earth and some business people claim it is killing their bottom line.

I assure you that anybody that ever comes after Jimbo on charges that he is mismanaging a nonprofit for personal benefit and exercising total control and is thus liable on a personal basis for damages (I hope he bought a nice home with cash, it is my understanding that Florida is popular for bankruptcies because afterward one can sell the house and use the capital to start over.) is going to be looking hard at client lawyer relationships and intermingled financial affairs.

Nobody warns a scapegoat. They are slaughtered at the convenience of the owners for their own benefit by definition.

...

I guess what I should have or could have asked is: In your professional opinion, would it reduce current or future legal liabilities and/or expenses if different guidelines (from the apparently nonexistent ones or the ones currently in use) regarding conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest were developed and implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation?

Is this really the stuff for lawyers' opinions? In all fairness to lawyers people who ask them questions are more often looking for certainty instead of mere opinion. A relatively honest lawyer after due research may tell them that a certain course of action has a 99% chance of not leading to a lawsuit, but the client is not satisfied with the 1% risk so he rejects the more profitable course of action out of fear. It really comes down to people making decisions and accepting the responsibility and consequences of those decisions without looking for someone else (like a lawyer) to blame when things go sour.

lol So how come the Wikimedia Foundation hired a lawyer? Maybe Jimbo had more money than time when he researched how to get started in business. I had more time than money but I still payed a lawyer for expertise and administrative processing when it was time to put my initial attempt at business entrepreneurship out of its misery. Worked out ok. Everybody's paychecks cleared but I stiffed my credit card companies. They were not happy about this role reversal but they had little recourse, all the i's were dotted and t's crossed. Most of the local businesses when they go under protect their credit ratings by paying the big guys and bouncing the payroll checks. We have local entrepreneurs that go bankrupt every quarter or two and usually have no less than two or three businesses active at a time. They live pretty good lifestyles. All I can figure is they are tied in pretty well with the local networks of professionals.

...

...

I am often highly critical of the current management format, but I can also see enough dangers in a totally democratic system to be wary of such a model.

I also would be skeptical of a "pure" "democracy" of one sock puppet one vote. I doubt it is even feasible to set up such a structure up as a U.S. liability limited non profit or for profit corporation. It is my understanding that U.S. law requires specific accountable points of contact when filing for the legal priveleges granted to regulated legal organizations. However, there is a wide range of lattitude left to the individual registered organization in the U.S. regarding how they "manage" their own affairs within the constraints of the law. The dichotomy of our current and past discussion alternating between unilateral bandwidthianism (the guy with control of the centralized editing bandwidth makes the rules) and total chaos (one sock puppet one vote) barely scratches the surface of the range of possibilities available in the good old USA.

U.S. corporate structures are governed by state law. It says something when a state like Delaware has corporate headquarters completely out of proportion to its population. Voting in profit corporations is democratically on a one share one vote basis; you can buy as many sockpuppets as you can afford.

This is factually incorrect. Voting proceeds in accordance with how the stocks, shares, other mumbo jumbo financial instruments are defined and voting procedures and priveleges defined in the law, offerings, procedures, guidelines, etc. Preferred shares usually get dividends before others such as common stock but have no vote; a lawyer better have read the fine print or you may find your "share" is a share of liability like Lloyd's of Londons new partners encountered a few years back when joining that prestigious partnership.

Common stock often means one dollar of initial capital and one vote just as you have stated above. It also often means whatever someone wants it to mean. The guy that writes the charter probably also writes or supervises writing the shares and the voting procedures .... caveat emptor right? lol I do not think I have ever seen a case study or a wiki collaboration on that kind of stuff. I wonder if the business school at Wikiversity will be interested or if we will have to setup a business engineering department to protect the rights of the hoard of free engineers I expect we will develop over the next few centuries via our masterful community management?

I don't really have a solution to suggest about how Wikimedia should be run. In the early days there were many sceptics who could not imagine such a scheme as viable, and look where it ranks now within the top 20 websites in the world. Wikiholics (even just American ones) are not typical of their ambient populations. It's a gang of people with insanely strong individual POVs trying to bring NPOV to the world. Go figure!

Ok, you have me giggling now so I have to go setup my mom's new gateway computer or get some sleep or something. First amendment convolved with infinite automated soapboxbots presented almost worldwide via a global focal point. Nobody leanin nottung except maybe how to use oa spell checker if not to lazy .... image what can be accomplished if we can just tell those people how to study at our impending official wikiversity. Truly staggering what a corrupt self serving tyrant can accomplish in collaboration with secret police and informers or whiners.

So kindergarden works .... what will we do for first grade if Jimbo edicts no game cheating manuals? Script cheating kiddies unite!!!! Thinking ... thinking .... nothing ... maybe go check out Jimbo Neutrino for a clue .... btw. Saw either a Quantum or Chesire at Barion alley downtown tonight. Mentioned it to a local newsman. When asked pointblank about Wikipedia he admitted he used it regularly. We discuss various modus operandis and scamming techniques and he paraphrased back enough that I could tell I had met my master in conspiracy analsis. I reminded him how to find Wikinews (link on main page of Wikimedia) and he acknowledge he might wander by sometime to check it out.

BTW Elvis may have left the building. There is an independent calculational chemistry wiki and a quantum physics wiki club online. I have not reviewed either in detail sufficient to have an opinion on whether they will thrive and grow or whither and fade away. Some mother's may I milkweed seeds have obviously drifted away .... whether they will waft back into poor little weedy Wikiversity to sow dandy lionesses or useful tansy tee ooffs, probably up to sun spots or neutrinos fluxes or something; if it ever gets started; might be a good aerodynamics simulation exercise ... how does one photograph virtual smoke rings or streamlines in a time tagged temporarily ordered even if not completely accurately enough to be confident in short term trends?

I wonder if FlightGear.org could be usefully mutated or augmented with such a beast .... a virtual plane with its own wind tunnel for adhoc mod testing .... this could be the answer to TA2 if we cannot attract the halo addicts because Jimbo, in his infinite wisdom, has decided there is no need for an english war college no matter how useful it would be to various offshoots of the global infestation of former Englishmen and simmering irate pit bulls.

So when we are fantasizing about saving the day on Flight 93 by pulling a Rambo on opportunity because we were to stupid (or smart! ... I will make the case that Bin Laden is CIA indian off the reservation as a misinformation ploy to establish Amercian totacracy for the next millenium another time to save space and time herein) to premediate a locking door or former combat pilot side arm training via pinball simulators we can have a combat engineer design us a robot pilot capable of flying the now mangled 777 hanging by two thirds of fusalege and a single source transister supplier or simply change the control laws on the autopilot to sinc appropriately with the stealth bombers recalled from Iranium asphalting ...... a wing with a landing system and a pilot ... my kingdom for a wings and some live pilots inaccessbile to panicking passengers all racing to the front in a horde to exceed the control authority of the flappers in the increasing breeze on the way down.

Too bad those heroes never had a centroid or center of mass aware wargame when they playing corporate team paintball ..... in clean green english I acknowledge and agree they were heroes and people are alive on the ground today because they forced the plane down. Still Rambo amano amano may have been a better strategy with women and kids dispatched symetrically to the back ... maybe that is how they did it. Have not seen the authoritative movie or post mortem yet. Too bad there is no $200 video camera and attached telemetry for the super dupers global realtime (oxymoron unless FTL particle or appropriate time multiplexing has been discovered or designed) IFDAPS (Integrated Flight Data Acquistion Processing System) or RAPIDS (Realtime Acquistion Processing Instrumentation and Data System) ejection capsule or black box. Maybe next time.

I wonder if we could use the swordfish guy's 747 if we

God I love that statement. "Nobody ever thought a 747 could be used for a cruise missile." I can understand that maybe she did not care for John Wayne movies or the pacific ocean ..... but how was she missed WWII at an Ivy League ...... maybe she studied under Japanese tutors conspiring against us. Kamakaze would a smoky purple merry sort of drink .... and suicide martyr or hijacker would be .... I am at loss. Have to come back later.

Have a nice day, Ray

Michael R. Irwin SCI Upgrade Program Manager, retired, combat fatigued

cc:carnivore cc:cape canaveral cc:Louis L'Amour's brain excised co-conspirator, billy bobbers, cc:chesire cat & quantum pb lead poisening barion possum depleted radiation ammunition poisening or breeder feul ? who is financing which war?