[Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny
Michael R. Irwin
michael_irwin at verizon.net
Sat Apr 22 12:30:01 UTC 2006
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
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list