[Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

Wed Apr 19 19:56:05 UTC 2006

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 at fowlerwhite.com

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:57 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; English Wikipedia;
wikipedia-l at 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 at 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.