I have just come across the user page of Enforcer(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enforcer), a troll who has today challenged the right of Wikimedia to seek charitable donations outside of Florida .
He says he has done research finding that the foundation is breaking the law, and appears to have groomed "potential complainants" to file lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation in their respective states. I'm no legal person, so could anyone tell me whether what he is saying is correct, whether anything needs to be rectified, who he really is (in terms of a user), and how he can be dealt with?
- Gabriel Beecham / Kwekubo
____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015211.html
answers most of those questions
-s
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gabriel Beecham" gabriel_beecham@yahoo.co.uk To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org; foundation-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 9:59 PM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Legal challenge from Enforcer
I have just come across the user page of Enforcer(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enforcer), a troll who has today challenged the right of Wikimedia to seek charitable donations outside of Florida .
He says he has done research finding that the foundation is breaking the law, and appears to have groomed "potential complainants" to file lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation in their respective states. I'm no legal person, so could anyone tell me whether what he is saying is correct, whether anything needs to be rectified, who he really is (in terms of a user), and how he can be dealt with?
- Gabriel Beecham / Kwekubo
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gabriel Beecham wrote:
He says he has done research finding that the foundation is breaking the law, and appears to have groomed "potential complainants" to file lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation in their respective states. I'm no legal person, so could anyone tell me whether what he is saying is correct, whether anything needs to be rectified, who he really is (in terms of a user), and how he can be dealt with?
What he is saying is not correct, and who he is, I don't really know, other than that he's most likely the same person as EntmootsOfTrolls, "24", etc. The writing style is essentially similar, and his uniform hatred of me and the Wikipedia project is identical.
As to the question he's raising -- whether we need to register in all the states, it's pretty much a gray area of the law. As I understand it, we are *not* soliciting people for donations -- to do that, we'd have to be approaching them, as opposed to them approaching us. And if we *were* soliciting people for donations, we would be doing it *here* in Florida. But there is apparently very little precedent in this area, because as a matter of fact, these laws are not always vigorously enforced anyway.
Nonetheless, I have said for a long time now that I think we should eventually get registered in all the states, as well as in any nations where this sort of things seems important, if for no other reason than to eliminate even the possibility of someone making this accusation.
The separate accusation that he made -- that we are not disclosing everything that we legally need to disclose to donors, is absurd. We don't just disclose everything that we legally need to disclose, we disclose just about *everything* period. The only thing that I do keep private is the personal information of contributors, which is not only within our rights, but is also the right thing to do.
--Jimbo
For the record, User:Enforcer has now been banned. I blocked the original account and several other users blocked reincarnations.
Aside from the fact that he made several completely false claims (something which we know 142.177 AKA Craig Hubley is quite fond of), he solicited support for his crusade from three known trolls (JRR Trollkien, Pooya and Plato).
Whether he is talking to himself or trying to build some kind of troll network I don't know or care, I do know that he's a returning troll whose only intent is to disrupt the community and that was justification enough to block him. He made no actual contributions to Wikipedia.
FWIW, I also think JRR Trollkien should be banned, but that case should at least go through arbitration as JRR has made some article edits (mostly to trolling-related articles, of which we have alarmingly many). I don't know how much good blocking him will do, really, as he'll probably just keep coming back under different names.
I've suggested some kind of special quickpoll where we would force a suspected troll to only make meaningful edits to serious encyclopedia articles under penalty of a hardban. I don't know if this would be a way to reform trolls, or a recipe for disaster, but it might be worth trying. Most trolls seems to concentrate on the Wikipedia: namespace, talk pages, trolling articles, and their user pages.
Sigh. Why do people have to be such jackasses? Maybe we really *do* need wikicops in all world regions.
Regards,
Erik
"Enforcer" appears to be Bird, not 142. And as far as I can see he's not making a legal challenge or encouraging anyone to do the same, he's encouraging people to complain to the relevant regulatory body. That's his right and I wish him luck. Wikimedia is a serious organisation and can't be intimidated every time some disgruntled user calls the cops. If Wikimedia really was breaking the law (and I accept Jimbo's assurance that it is not), then that is a problem that I hope we would all be interested in seeing addressed.
The idea that Bomis has editorial control over Wikipedia sounds bizarre to most of us. Witness the edit war conducted between Erik Moeller and Tim Shell over [[Bomis]] in mid-January 2004. Bomis can't even exert significant editorial control over the article on itself, let alone an article about an advertiser on a blog which is linked to by Bomis.
And I'd like to extend my thanks to Jimbo for the extraordinary amount of time, money and effort he has put into Wikipedia. It has become a truly extraordinary resource.
-- Tim Starling
Tim-
"Enforcer" appears to be Bird, not 142.
Which would make him a banned user and justify instant re-banning. If he wants to engage in reasonable dialogue, that has always been possible. Wikipedia is not, however, a forum for trolls to publish their conspiracy theories or outright libel.
As your example [[Bomis]] shows, I am hardly a subservient sycophant, as is not a single Wikipedian I know. In fact Wikipedia is the most self- critical online project I have ever been part of, sometimes to the point of temporary paralysis. Critical dialogue on all aspects of our community is not simply tolerated, it is encouraged.
This openness has led some trolls to try to disrupt our community systematically, feeling emboldened by the occasional cry of censorship that echoes back from the larger community. These trolls are the people who would like to see Wikipedia fail, most of them because we don't (and cannot) allow them to publish their convulsive ravings as gospel, or because they want the attention that their mother or their girlfriend apparently didn't give them.
Can you reform someone whose goal is to destroy the very thing you are creating? Should you even try? I remain ambivalent on this question as I can't think of a single success story in that department. Even Lir, whom we accepted back into our community in spite of his terrible track record and lack of a public apology, left weeks ago, insulting the entire community one last time and calling several individuals "fuckwits" and "assholes" on their talk pages before his departure. It says a lot about our pain tolerance that he was not instantly banned for that, and that some users in fact asked him to come back. I for one am happy if he keeps doing whatever he's doing right now.
Regards,
Erik
erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:
Sigh. Why do people have to be such jackasses? Maybe we really *do* need wikicops in all world regions.
They also help to make this world a better world (even if they do not know it). Recommended reading “Faust” by Goethe:
Des Menschen Tätigkeit kann allzu leicht erschlaffen, er liebt sich bald die unbedingte Ruh; Drum geb ich gern ihm den Gesellen zu, Der reizt und wirkt und muß als Teufel schaffen.
Translation (http://www.gutenberg.net/etext02/faust10.zip):
Ever too prone is man activity to shirk, In unconditioned rest he fain would live; Hence this companion purposely I gives, Who stirs, excites, and must, as devil, work.
Gabriel Beecham wrote:
He says he has done research finding that the foundation is breaking the law, and appears to have groomed "potential complainants" to file lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation in their respective states. I'm no legal person, so could anyone tell me whether what he is saying is correct, whether anything needs to be rectified, who he really is (in terms of a user), and how he can be dealt with?
No matter what one does to comply with laws, regulations, rules, etc. there will always be individuals willing to sue based solely on the evidence found in their delusions.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org