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

Thu Apr 20 13:14:07 UTC 2006

BorgHunter wrote:
> 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

hi

You precisely hit the nail on the head BorgHunter.

Ant