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

Thu Apr 20 08:26:39 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.  
>  
>
What is your qualified legal opinion regarding Eric's suggestion that 
the work be labeled appropriately so that other members of the community 
(or he) do not repeat this mistake in the future?

Would proper labeling reduce the Foundation's legal risks in the future?

This is not a trivial rhetorical question.  In the early days of 
Wikipedia  it was often unclear in what capacity various agents such as 
Bomis employees were acting.   Now with the success of the Wikimedia 
Foundation in fund raising we once again have employees and professional 
staff .... and there appears to be some form of communications failure 
or conflict once again occuring between compensated professionals and 
community volunteers.

>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.
>  
>
Are you paid by Foundation funds or by personal funds of  members of the 
stacked Board?

In a conflict of interest between the Foundation's responsiblities to 
the pulblic as per Florida law and the Board members' personal interests 
who do you represent?

>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.  
>
Personally I do not see any need for a non profit public foundation 
dedicated to legally publishing free information created by the public 
at large; and located physically in the United States of America; to be 
engaged in excessive secrecy.  Certainly employee social security 
numbers should be kept private in keeping with U.S. laws.  The need for 
secret or private communications tools such as restricted email lists, 
non public meetings, etc. escapes me.  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. 

It has been my experience that often lawyers cite specific sections of 
U.S. or State code or regulations or even specific phrases or case law 
when informing lay people of their opinions regarding legal matters.

Perhaps if you or the office were to write up some specific 
recommendations regarding how the community or the Wikimedia Foundation 
or your client could avoid legal liabilities by actually complying with 
the applicable laws rather than simply recommending that the Foundation 
get secretive about its "private" matters we could avoid some legal 
risks in the future?

In your august opinion; does arbitrary, capricious, or excessive action 
towards an individual such as Eric, who has demonstrably contributed in 
large positive measurable ways to the community's projects in the past 
incur any legal, operational, or measurable avoidable risks for the 
Foundation, the stacked Board, or their legal advisers?

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.

I vote Aye.  Sorry about the inconvenience Eric.   I value your past and 
future contributions and I think the Wikimedia Foundation should send 
you a reimbursement check for the no doubt expensive phone calls 
necessary to straighten out this mess so that you can continue 
volunteering your efforts to our projects.

>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?

Does the Wikimedia Foundation have any fiduciary responsibilities to the 
contributing public and the public at large under U.S. law?  Are these 
responsibilities defined exclusively by U.S. law or are the public 
solicitations used to gather public donations considered somewhat 
influential or binding in Florida State or U.S. Federal  courts?

Regards,
Michael R. Irwin
aka,
lazyquasar or
mirwin, the lying troll