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

Sun Apr 23 04:59:19 UTC 2006

Michael R. Irwin wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>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.
>
Effective resistance is more a matter of opportunity than 
premeditation.  If I have not been served with a gag order I can't 
resist it.  I am not one of those who would avoid trouble at any price, 
but manipulating circumstances for the sole purpose of spurring the 
patriotism police into action is still trolling.

>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.
>
Good luck!

>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.
>
Those of us outside the US see these things more clearly.  It's easier 
to see the whole forest when you're standing outside of it.

>>>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.
>
Perhaps "vote of confidence" might have been a better term.  Entropy in 
a volunteer organization becomes manifest when it substitutes rules for 
principles.

>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.   ...  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.
>
There is an element of institutionalized chutzpah to it all.  Lawyers 
play a large role in writing laws.  And what lawyer turned judge would 
recuse himself for conflict of interest in a case that attacks the 
privileges of his profession?

It's fascinating to observe how otherwise normal rebels who regularly 
confront elitism in the professions will still pusilanimously pepper 
their comments with "IANAL".

>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 think that I would prefer an approach that does not make one lawyer a 
scapegoat for his entire industry.

>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?
>
Is this really the stuff for lawyers' opinions?  In all fairness to 
lawyers people who ask them questions are more often looking for 
certainty instead of mere opinion.  A relatively honest lawyer after due 
research may tell them that a certain course of action has a 99% chance 
of not leading to a lawsuit, but the client is not satisfied with the 1% 
risk so he rejects the more profitable course of action out of fear.  It 
really comes down to people making decisions and accepting the 
responsibility and consequences of those decisions without looking for 
someone else (like a lawyer) to blame when things go sour.

>>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.
>
U.S. corporate structures are governed by state law.  It says something 
when a state like Delaware has corporate headquarters completely out of 
proportion to its population.  Voting in profit corporations is 
democratically on a one share one vote basis; you can buy as many 
sockpuppets as you can afford.  I don't really have a solution to 
suggest about how Wikimedia should be run.  In the early days there were 
many sceptics who could not imagine such a scheme as viable, and look 
where it ranks now within the top 20 websites in the world.  Wikiholics 
(even just American ones) are not typical of their ambient populations.  
It's a gang of people with insanely strong individual POVs trying to 
bring NPOV to the world.  Go figure! 

Ec