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

Wed Apr 19 21:02:47 UTC 2006

-----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 at epoptic.org | But this wasn't it. --Groucho Marx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFERqV2MAt1wyd9d+URApaEAJ9Z8kCoKNjftKcpIeop7qk2QAuPggCfVzgT
PtydwMTp8nFCx376DKOkdtM=
=9ROC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----