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

Wed Apr 19 20:13:40 UTC 2006

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 at 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