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

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