i'll respond inline.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:08 AM, David Emrany <david.emrany(a)gmail.com>
I've altered the subject line at your suggestion.
The name of the case (and the opposite party) is equally well known to
Wikimedia-Legal. The first decision in the case is online at the WIPO
website, however, since it is still under litigation, I am not linking
to it under the WP:OUTING policies, and it would be far better that
whoever speaks for WMF links to it.
entirely different topic. lets no mingle that.
I am categorically saying
1) In 2016, WMF's Asian fund-raising campaign in SAARC began 2 or 3
weeks before they started elsewhere, probably to coincide with the
local festive season when people are receptive to giving.
fundraising happens all over the world at different times - nobody is
denying that, and I see no problem with that.
2) The WMF banner ads for SAARC did not discrimnate between logged-in
users and readers.
that is your claim, so much is clear. Do you have anything to back that up
in other accounts. Also, this does not consider the simple possibility of
3) Perhaps WMF learned from all this and adapted it to their non-Asian
ad banner / email solicitation campaigns which began from 29 Nov 2016
I must say that seddon sounds better informed, and has a more plausable
explanation, even if it were correct.
4) Perhaps you have an inherent COI in this case to suppress the
questionable means by how WMF funds / endowments are raised, because
you are on the consuming side ?
I mostly have beef with unfounded or unhelpful criticism.
If it is evidence you want, try this for intelligent hounding ?
i'm missing the relevance of the email campaign?
i'm sorry, but where it comes to the register, i refuse to take their
PS: I would certainly like specific clarity from WMF on how much was
paid in 2014-15 for legal services "to" Jonesday and how much was paid
again, straying off-topic. lets not go there.
On 9/11/17, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be
you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not
unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number
of campaigns. If you
that then please bring that up in a *separate*
you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the
at hand: the two stage loading problem.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany <david.emrany(a)gmail.com>
> Dear Joseph
> Thanks for that link.
> *NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
> delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
> self-financing model.
> Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
> linking to the following messages
> 1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form
2014-2015 now on-wiki*
*"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
squatters" had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
(a not insubstantial amount).
2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
> *"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490
> fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute:
> We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with
> case that fits this description. We do not
fight cybersquatters who
> to donate their domains (especially if they
are community members),and,
> date, we have not spent anything
approachingthat much money on this type
> of case."*
> 3. *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
> "Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix
> knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil
> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/09/14/rosanah-fienngo/>, Germany
> including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not
> linked unlike the others
> So to sum up:
> 1. The WMF form 990 says US law firm "JonesDay" received US$ 1,742,916
> for legal services in 2014-15
> 2. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community how much of
> that was spent on fighting a specific "cyber-squatter" from India (my
> sources at the time said US$ 300,000 was paid
by WMF to JonesDay for
> case, mainly billable hours for JD partner
> 3. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community whether or not
> this cyber squatter (who claims to be a community member since 2003) had
> straightaway offered to donate the domain name free of cost to the WMF
> and close the case, however, WMF rejected the offer and instead ran up
> legal bills which were financed by donations,
and probably continues to
> do so since that case is still ongoing in India's legal system .
> 4. I distinctly recall that when I was in India in mid-November 2016,
> attending the Opendaylight Linux forum in Bengaluru and incidentally
> discussing there the progress of this legal case with the other party
> was an attendee, I was bombarded with WMF
donation banner-ads, as a
> logged-in user, which carried through till mid-December 2016 when I was
> at Sri Lanka and Kathmandu but which curiously stopped when I reached
> 5. So, as a community member and contributor, I would like to know how
> every dollar raised by WMF is collected, and also spent thereafter.
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Joseph Seddon <josephseddon(a)gmail.com>
>> Hi David,
>> I would refer to my answer I gave on the forked thread relating to this
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org