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
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
Mr. Patrick,
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. 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. 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?
Thanks, BorgHunter
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
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
BorgHunter schrieb:
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.
Tha knife cuts both ways.
Ec
On 4/19/06, BorgHunter borghunter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I don't agree. If Erik was unaware of what was going on, he wouldn't have unprotected the page. Erik has only once before unprotected a page with that account. Even his edit summary makes it clear that he was trying to make a point about the public disclosure office protection, a matter he has previously been outspoken for...
It may be worth discussing if his point had merit, but I think that it is clear to everyone who cares about behaving in a responsible way that it is not acceptable to make a point out of something that is quite possibly a legal issue.
When did Wikipedia admins forget about talk pages and email? The complaints about these issues are always justified by fears of protecting "the community", but what sort of community do we actually have when trusting and discussion are no longer considered valuable? How are we a community when every person fancies himself to be [[Rambo]]?
BorgHunter wrote:
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
Mr. Patrick,
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. 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. 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?
Thanks, BorgHunter
hi
You precisely hit the nail on the head BorgHunter.
Ant
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Patrick, Brad stated for the record:
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
Thank you for your explanation. As an Arbiter, I have some slight idea of how ... interesting ... situations can become, and I full support of the OFFICE policy as a tool to use in handling those situations.
Can you explain the reasons why Eloquence must be prohibited from ever editing the English Wikipedia again? Danny is apparently using OFFICE to justify what looks like a lifetime ban (something even the Arbitration Committee cannot impose) that he refused to explain.
I can understand that the Foundation's obligations are greater than loyalty to any one user. Is it the case that the Foundation cannot explain why this one user is being permanently banned with no explanation of why he must be sacrificed?
- -- Sean Barrett | I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. sean@epoptic.org | But this wasn't it. --Groucho Marx
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org