Arbcom gets a lawyer

[Peter Damian]

We seemed to have reached an agreement by 25 March. The Foundation would recommend to the Committee that they remove mention of my 2009 ban on Foundation websites, recommend a rebadging of the ban, and recommend an apology or explanation, so long as I made an unconditional agreement not to edit any Foundation website ever again.

I wasn't sure about the unconditional agreement, but at the beginning of April there was an family problem caused by a life-threatening illness, and so I agreed to the conditions on 23 April in order to reach a prompt settlement.

Since then I heard nothing. I emailed again on 14 May. What's going on? The Foundation's lawyer replied. "Please accept my apologies for the delay in acknowledging your email. We have received your email and I will write to ArbCom today to see what their status is". Still nothing. What's going on? Another reply from the Foundation: "No problem! I shot them [Arbcom] an email right after I emailed you about what course of action they would like to take and am now awaiting responses (which may take a little while considering time zones and the number of people). But I will, as always, let know you when I know. =)" [My emphasis]

Despite the 'as always, I will let you know' bit, I heard nothing. So a month later I sent a more strongly worded 'whats going on' mail, plus drew Brad's attention to it on his page.

Result, a snotty note from the Foundation saying they were "surprised and disappointed by the actions you have taken in the past day". They had shown "nothing but good faith during the course of this dispute. The Foundation's participation in this matter has been out of a courtesy to you and done in hopes of fostering an amicable agreement between you and ArbCom". I had been editing Wikipedia (i.e. leaving a note on Brad's page) "despite your promises not to do so". That is, referring to my promise not to edit Wikipedia in return for removing mention of my 2009 ban on Foundation websites, a rebadging of the ban, and an apology or explanation. They forgot the 'in return' bit.

They have now directed me to a lawyer in Manchester, England, a specialist in commercial litigation. In future, all correspondence with the Arbitration Committee must go through him.

This is absolutely one of those cases where getting the parties in a room over tea or coffee is guaranteed to resolve any difficulty. It really is quite a trivial matter. It has been blown out of all proportion by the passive-aggressive culture of Wikipedia. Any attempt to resolve it on a personal basis is met by the charge of 'harassment'. I don't even know the identities of the people I am dealing with. Who is AGK? NuclearWarfare? Risker? 'Roger Davies'? Salvio giuliano? Timotheus Canens? Worm That Turned? My situation is no different from the people whose Wikipedia biographies are an attraction to any troll, vandal, and score-settler who can make actions without any accountability whatsoever, smeared in a way that does not have the status of an inconsequential rant, but "rather reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia" as Seth Finkelstein nicely put it. And it is these cowardly trolls who are responsible.

Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

[lilburne]

Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

Report him to the Law Society.

[thekohser]

Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

Report him to the Law Society.

Telephone him every morning, and every afternoon, until he responds. (I have to assume that the WMF is paying this guy for service, so don't feel bad about pestering him -- you're just getting the WMF's money's worth.)

[Peter Damian]

Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

Report him to the Law Society.

Telephone him every morning, and every afternoon, until he responds. (I have to assume that the WMF is paying this guy for service, so don't feel bad about pestering him -- you're just getting the WMF's money's worth.)

I feel bad that people are donating money to the Foundation, some of it small amounts taken from meagre paychecks, on the assumption this money is going to bring the sum of human knowledge to everyone etc., when in fact the money is paying for about 10 minutes of the time of a partner at a top UK law firm. And when the intended result is to prevent someone like me bringing my specialist knowledge to the world.

[edit] That said, the guy has just got in touch, saying to be patient and he will get back later. I don't know if that has anything to do with this post. I saw Brad reading it earlier.

[lilburne]

I wouldn't be concerned about the donation money. Unless they were lying to the Italian Courts, the WMF does not get involved with community disputes. Thus one can only assume that Risker, NYB, WTT and the rest are paying out of their own pocket. Also the lawyer could well be working on a set fee, rather than on a time basis. He may erroneously have though that it would take a few hours of actual work and pre-charged them on that basis. My reaction would be to take that few hours and make sure it converts into several weeks of work for him.

[Peter Damian]

I wouldn't be concerned about the donation money. Unless they were lying to the Italian Courts, the WMF does not get involved with community disputes. Thus one can only assume that Risker, NYB, WTT and the rest are paying out of their own pocket. Also the lawyer could well be working on a set fee, rather than on a time basis. He may erroneously have though that it would take a few hours of actual work and pre-charged them on that basis. My reaction would be to take that few hours and make sure it converts into several weeks of work for him.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Foundation are paying for this.

[lilburne]

I wouldn't be concerned about the donation money. Unless they were lying to the Italian Courts, the WMF does not get involved with community disputes. Thus one can only assume that Risker, NYB, WTT and the rest are paying out of their own pocket. Also the lawyer could well be working on a set fee, rather than on a time basis. He may erroneously have though that it would take a few hours of actual work and pre-charged them on that basis. My reaction would be to take that few hours and make sure it converts into several weeks of work for him.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Foundation are paying for this. They located the lawyer, they are giving the instructions etc. The Foundation made the original recommendation to the Committee.

My advice would be to get that confirmed in writing. Your dispute is primarily over the badging of your user page. IE it concerns content in wikipedia, if the WMF are aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring for one side of the arguement then they are not acting as neutral hosters of content.

[lilburne]

I've asked them the question:

Did the Italian court know that the WMF is currently aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring (paying for) legal representation of ArbCom members in what is essentially a content dispute?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2506

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/26/wi ... ent-265509

[thekohser]

I've asked them the question:

Did the Italian court know that the WMF is currently aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring (paying for) legal representation of ArbCom members in what is essentially a content dispute?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2506

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/26/wi ... ent-265509

Let us know when that question gets approved on the WMF blog, and I'll hop the next flight on the back of a pig, to shake your hand.

[TungstenCarbide]

... Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

Over six years now of this bullshit ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =255057291


P.S. they are talking about you in bold, Peter, right? (just checking);

Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.

Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? --Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[Peter Damian]

... Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

Over six years now of this bullshit ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =255057291


P.S. they are talking about you in bold, Peter, right? (just checking);

Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.

Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? --Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They are talking about me, yes. Duk has not got the details quite right. But the oversighting affair was another classic affair of how something trivial turns into something significant on account of the granite wall of silence that perpetually surrounds the inner workings of Wikipedia. They do something wrong, and hide it. Someone later finds out and challenges them, and they deny that they hid it. So you have two things: the hiding, and denial of hiding, or the refusal to answer any question about it. Then much later someone else comes along and finds they knew about the denial: why didn't they say something then? Did you discuss it? Another denial is necessary and so on and so on.

[roger_pearse]

Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

Report him to the Law Society.

I don't think the Law Society are the regulator any more. Which is just as well as my own experience of complaining to the Law Society about obvious negligence was very negative. They just didn't give a damn, and cynically suggested that I sue the solicitor for negligence (knowing, of course, that no ordinary person could possibly do such a thing).

Is it the Solicitors Regulation Authority now?

[neved]

We seemed to have reached an agreement by 25 March. The Foundation would recommend to the Committee that they remove mention of my 2009 ban on Foundation websites, recommend a rebadging of the ban, and recommend an apology or explanation, so long as I made an unconditional agreement not to edit any Foundation website ever again.

I wasn't sure about the unconditional agreement, but at the beginning of April there was an family problem caused by a life-threatening illness, and so I agreed to the conditions on 23 April in order to reach a prompt settlement.

Since then I heard nothing. I emailed again on 14 May. What's going on? The Foundation's lawyer replied. "Please accept my apologies for the delay in acknowledging your email. We have received your email and I will write to ArbCom today to see what their status is". Still nothing. What's going on? Another reply from the Foundation: "No problem! I shot them [Arbcom] an email right after I emailed you about what course of action they would like to take and am now awaiting responses (which may take a little while considering time zones and the number of people). But I will, as always, let know you when I know. =)" [My emphasis]

Despite the 'as always, I will let you know' bit, I heard nothing. So a month later I sent a more strongly worded 'whats going on' mail, plus drew Brad's attention to it on his page.

Result, a snotty note from the Foundation saying they were "surprised and disappointed by the actions you have taken in the past day". They had shown "nothing but good faith during the course of this dispute. The Foundation's participation in this matter has been out of a courtesy to you and done in hopes of fostering an amicable agreement between you and ArbCom". I had been editing Wikipedia (i.e. leaving a note on Brad's page) "despite your promises not to do so". That is, referring to my promise not to edit Wikipedia in return for removing mention of my 2009 ban on Foundation websites, a rebadging of the ban, and an apology or explanation. They forgot the 'in return' bit.

They have now directed me to a lawyer in Manchester, England, a specialist in commercial litigation. In future, all correspondence with the Arbitration Committee must go through him.

This is absolutely one of those cases where getting the parties in a room over tea or coffee is guaranteed to resolve any difficulty. It really is quite a trivial matter. It has been blown out of all proportion by the passive-aggressive culture of Wikipedia. Any attempt to resolve it on a personal basis is met by the charge of 'harassment'. I don't even know the identities of the people I am dealing with. Who is AGK? NuclearWarfare? Risker? 'Roger Davies'? Salvio giuliano? Timotheus Canens? Worm That Turned? My situation is no different from the people whose Wikipedia biographies are an attraction to any troll, vandal, and score-settler who can make actions without any accountability whatsoever, smeared in a way that does not have the status of an inconsequential rant, but "rather reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia" as Seth Finkelstein nicely put it. And it is these cowardly trolls who are responsible.

Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

Hi Peter, could you please tell me what reasons you stated to ask for the removal of the mentions of your ban?

Also in case you do not know who is AGK. He's a young power-hungry male http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =112702283

I appeared power-hungry, and to an extent I was.

Also please see here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Re ... inship/AGK

December 27, 2006: adds himself to the standby list for CheckUser clerks. At the time, not granted.
December 29, 2006: requests to join the mediation committee. Denied.
December 31, 2006: requests OTRS access. Not granted.
January 9, 2007: requests CheckUser access. Denied.
January 16, 2007: attempts to gain access to the Bot Approvals Group. Denied.
February 9, 2007: requests adminship on the English Wikipedia. Not granted.
March 3, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee again. Denied.
March 6, 2007: requests to become an administrator at the Simple English Wikipedia. Denied, and he leaves that wiki soon afterward, indicating that he was editing there for the sole purpose of gaining adminship (though has since made some edits under his current username, AGK).
March 9, 2007: Adds self as CheckUser clerk, shortly after the process is made more open (previously, checkusers -- primarily Essjay -- added users themselves). I recall a conversation with Essjay before he left the site in which he told me that he did not wish for Anthony to become a clerk; this is of course hearsay, and Essjay can't back this up. However, Essjay privately, and to a lesser extent publicly, complained that many of the positions that Anthony/AGK applied for were positions that Essjay held, or positions under Essjay (i.e. CheckUser clerk), and that the requests seemed to him as a form of stalking.
April 4, 2007: requests OTRS access again; request withdrawn.
April 19, 2007: requests to become a coordinator of the Mediation Cabal via e-mail. Not granted.
April 27, 2007: requests adminship on the English Wikipedia for a second time. Granted this time; I voted Neutral.
May 18, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee for a third time. Granted; I was unable to register my opinion on his nomination before it closed.
May 23, 2007: becomes a VandalProof moderator.
May 24, 2007: Just a day later, removed as moderator by AmiDaniel, "due to complaints from a variety of sources".
July 24, 2007: requests OTRS access for a third time. Denied.
December 27, 2007: Named an Arbitration Committee Clerk (at the time, a trainee; since then he's been named a full clerk)
February 6, 2008: Named as an observer to the Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.
February 11, 2008: requests OTRS access for a fourth time. Denied.
March 8, 2008: requests an account on the Foundation wiki. Request not yet acted upon.

And other members of the ArbCom, well, they are dishonest,corrupt, cowardly, power-hungry users, most of whom have only a very few edits in the articles space. Do you need to know anything else about them?
I do not.

[Triptych]

We seemed to have reached an agreement by 25 March... They have now directed me to a lawyer in Manchester, England, a specialist in commercial litigation. In future, all correspondence with the Arbitration Committee must go through him... Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

Hi Peter, could you please tell me what reasons you stated to ask for the removal of the mentions of your ban?

Also in case you do not know who is AGK...

And other members of the ArbCom, well, they are dishonest,corrupt, cowardly, power-hungry users, most of whom have only a very few edits in the articles space. Do you need to know anything else about them? I do not.

But I do. AGK says his first name is Anthony, and has said the "GK" is based on other than his middle and surname. "Timotheus Canens" has stated his previous account name was "Tim Song." He has also identified it as "Tim Songs." He claims to have an association with Columbia university, but that institution would not and in my view will not give him a piece of paper with his name on it.

[Poetlister]

I don't think the Law Society are the regulator any more. Which is just as well as my own experience of complaining to the Law Society about obvious negligence was very negative. They just didn't give a damn, and cynically suggested that I sue the solicitor for negligence (knowing, of course, that no ordinary person could possibly do such a thing).

Is it the Solicitors Regulation Authority now?

You're quite right.

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work.page

[EricBarbour]

Despite the 'as always, I will let you know' bit, I heard nothing. So a month later I sent a more strongly worded 'whats going on' mail, plus drew Brad's attention to it on his page.

Result, a snotty note from the Foundation saying they were "surprised and disappointed by the actions you have taken in the past day". They had shown "nothing but good faith during the course of this dispute. The Foundation's participation in this matter has been out of a courtesy to you and done in hopes of fostering an amicable agreement between you and ArbCom". I had been editing Wikipedia (i.e. leaving a note on Brad's page) "despite your promises not to do so". That is, referring to my promise not to edit Wikipedia in return for removing mention of my 2009 ban on Foundation websites, a rebadging of the ban, and an apology or explanation. They forgot the 'in return' bit.

They have now directed me to a lawyer in Manchester, England, a specialist in commercial litigation. In future, all correspondence with the Arbitration Committee must go through him.

That's what they were waiting for you to do -- "edit some obscure part of Wikipedia" so they can shriek and jeer at you for "not following procedure"
and "not having good faith". They are ADHD, and this is exactly how ADHD sufferers act. As I said before, this was a foregone result months ago,
they had no intention of negotiating with you in a serious manner, they just wanted an opportunity to shit on your head.

Once again I repeat myself. Your only effective recourse will be to finish the book, and blow the lid off their sick little club.

[isaan]

We seemed to have reached an agreement by 25 March. The Foundation would recommend to the Committee that they remove mention of my 2009 ban on Foundation websites, recommend a rebadging of the ban, and recommend an apology or explanation, so long as I made an unconditional agreement not to edit any Foundation website ever again.

If the agreement ever becomes formal, feel free to post any potential edits that you might otherwise have made either here or elsewhere, and I'm sure others can figure out, of their own volition, how to make whatever edits they deem reasonable .

[tarantino]

But I do. AGK says his first name is Anthony, and has said the "GK" is based on other than his middle and surname. "Timotheus Canens" has stated his previous account name was "Tim Song." He has also identified it as "Tim Songs." He claims to have an association with Columbia university, but that institution would not and in my view will not give him a piece of paper with his name on it.

AGK is Anthony G. Kelly. "Timotheus Canens" is Ruijie Song, or more properly, Song Ruijie. In simplified Chinese, that's possibly 宋瑞杰.

[neved]

But I do. AGK says his first name is Anthony, and has said the "GK" is based on other than his middle and surname. "Timotheus Canens" has stated his previous account name was "Tim Song." He has also identified it as "Tim Songs." He claims to have an association with Columbia university, but that institution would not and in my view will not give him a piece of paper with his name on it.

AGK is Anthony G. Kelly. "Timotheus Canens" is Ruijie Song, or more properly, Song Ruijie. In simplified Chinese, that's possibly 宋瑞杰.

Looks like besides everything else Anthony G. Kelly is also an idiot
This exchange is taking place in February:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... ly_blocked

... See you in July. Selery (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"See you in July": is that a threat, Selery? AGK [•] 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, AGK, if it were a threat the editor would not have said "See you in July" in February. I am sure he is smart enough not to give you a warning five months in advance.

[The Joy]

We seemed to have reached an agreement by 25 March. The Foundation would recommend to the Committee that they remove mention of my 2009 ban on Foundation websites, recommend a rebadging of the ban, and recommend an apology or explanation, so long as I made an unconditional agreement not to edit any Foundation website ever again.

I wasn't sure about the unconditional agreement, but at the beginning of April there was an family problem caused by a life-threatening illness, and so I agreed to the conditions on 23 April in order to reach a prompt settlement.

Since then I heard nothing. I emailed again on 14 May. What's going on? The Foundation's lawyer replied. "Please accept my apologies for the delay in acknowledging your email. We have received your email and I will write to ArbCom today to see what their status is". Still nothing. What's going on? Another reply from the Foundation: "No problem! I shot them [Arbcom] an email right after I emailed you about what course of action they would like to take and am now awaiting responses (which may take a little while considering time zones and the number of people). But I will, as always, let know you when I know. =)" [My emphasis]

Despite the 'as always, I will let you know' bit, I heard nothing. So a month later I sent a more strongly worded 'whats going on' mail, plus drew Brad's attention to it on his page.

Result, a snotty note from the Foundation saying they were "surprised and disappointed by the actions you have taken in the past day". They had shown "nothing but good faith during the course of this dispute. The Foundation's participation in this matter has been out of a courtesy to you and done in hopes of fostering an amicable agreement between you and ArbCom". I had been editing Wikipedia (i.e. leaving a note on Brad's page) "despite your promises not to do so". That is, referring to my promise not to edit Wikipedia in return for removing mention of my 2009 ban on Foundation websites, a rebadging of the ban, and an apology or explanation. They forgot the 'in return' bit.

They have now directed me to a lawyer in Manchester, England, a specialist in commercial litigation. In future, all correspondence with the Arbitration Committee must go through him.

This is absolutely one of those cases where getting the parties in a room over tea or coffee is guaranteed to resolve any difficulty. It really is quite a trivial matter. It has been blown out of all proportion by the passive-aggressive culture of Wikipedia. Any attempt to resolve it on a personal basis is met by the charge of 'harassment'. I don't even know the identities of the people I am dealing with. Who is AGK? NuclearWarfare? Risker? 'Roger Davies'? Salvio giuliano? Timotheus Canens? Worm That Turned? My situation is no different from the people whose Wikipedia biographies are an attraction to any troll, vandal, and score-settler who can make actions without any accountability whatsoever, smeared in a way that does not have the status of an inconsequential rant, but "rather reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia" as Seth Finkelstein nicely put it. And it is these cowardly trolls who are responsible.

Even the lawyer has failed to reply to any of my mails. He has learned the culture well.

One thing I've learned about any legal process: Document! Document! Document!

Also, you should have your own lawyer. They've escalated this to the lawyer level.

[neved]

Also, you should have your own lawyer. They've escalated this to the lawyer level.[/quote]

Are you making a legal threat!

[greybeard]

They got a lawyer because they assume Ed won't get one. If he had a lawyer (and an actual cause of action), they would fold like a cheap suit.

[roger_pearse]

They got a lawyer because the assume Ed won't get one. If he had a lawyer (and an actual cause of action), they would fold like a cheap suit.

Having to pay a lawyer money is not an easy option, tho. I would guess that they know this. They could, after all, have resolved this already. Bringing in lawyers merely forces Mr Damian to pay out money while they mess him around, while not causing them any real costs. It's merely a stalling tactic, I would guess.

So I think I would avoid hiring a lawyer, and decline to be sidetracked. Ignore the lawyer, and write back and say that since their representative isn't replying, and you don't know why he was brought in anyway, you propose to ignore him.

What weasels. None of this is anything except tormenting others.

There is an interesting question, tho. If the WMF has a legal presence in this country, can it be sued? But anyway, none of us are rich men, and no poor man can go to law. Ignore the attempted distraction and press on with whatever you were doing in the first place.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[lilburne]

none of us are rich men, and no poor man can go to law.

Well the poor can go to law if they can obtain legal aid. So one might want to put any wealth in the hands of others (wife, chlidren, etc) and go for that. Alternatively, one might find that one has legal insurance that might cover it too.

If I were in the same position and in the mood I'd be tempted to say "Game on suckers" and start whatever the process is that has made them lawyer up. You don't need a lawyer yourself for that. However, as I've said before you need to be very clear that is what you want to do, what the end game is, and what the risks are. You can get free legal advice in many places. Most law firms will do a free consultation. You may even get one of the no win, no fee lawyers to play alongside you.

[Peter Damian]

As the Foundation and the Committee know very well, I have no intention of using a lawyer. A close family member is ill in a potentially drawn out and not very pleasant way, and I have no time for nonsense like the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. The Foundation knows this very well, and I even had a long and apparently well-meaning letter of condolence from Beaudette about it. This was in early April.

If the WMF has a legal presence in this country, can it be sued?

Before April I had discussed legal action but in the context of joint-and-several action against the UK members of the Committee. Everyone thinks of legal action in terms of legal entities like the WMF, but the Arbcom is an entity and an organisation like any other community of people working in a concerted and coordinated way. It's just they aren't legally incorporated, so proceedings are on a 'joint and several' basis, meaning if the action is successful you can pursue any of them ('severally') for the full costs, which they would then have to recover ('jointly') from the others.

Also I never contemplated full High Court action, which is incredibly expensive, merely (and at most) a non-court arbitration service to compel the UK members of the Committee to come to the table and discuss the issue in a reasonable way. If they want to be represented by a lawyer that's their concern.

In any case, I dropped all that in early April after the illness was confirmed. I regard it as somewhat callous for the Committee to want to pursue it in this way. I have dropped the idea of legal action which, according to them, was the reason for not replying to my invitation to discuss. They clearly cannot hold to their side of the agreement. I think the Foundation regards it as an irritation that they would like to resolve as quickly as possible.

What weasels. None of this is anything except tormenting others.

Quite.

[eppur si muove]

But I do. AGK says his first name is Anthony, and has said the "GK" is based on other than his middle and surname. "Timotheus Canens" has stated his previous account name was "Tim Song." He has also identified it as "Tim Songs." He claims to have an association with Columbia university, but that institution would not and in my view will not give him a piece of paper with his name on it.

AGK is Anthony G. Kelly. "Timotheus Canens" is Ruijie Song, or more properly, Song Ruijie. In simplified Chinese, that's possibly 宋瑞杰.

Looks like besides everything else Anthony G. Kelly is also an idiot
This exchange is taking place in February:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... ly_blocked

... See you in July. Selery (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"See you in July": is that a threat, Selery? AGK [•] 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, AGK, if it were a threat the editor would not have said "See you in July" in February. I am sure he is smart enough not to give you a warning five months in advance.

Can you really not tell that something is a joke without two hundred smilies?

[Triptych]

AGK is Anthony G. Kelly. "Timotheus Canens" is Ruijie Song, or more properly, Song Ruijie. In simplified Chinese, that's possibly 宋瑞杰.

Looks like besides everything else Anthony G. Kelly is also an idiot This exchange is taking place in February:

... See you in July. Selery (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"See you in July": is that a threat, Selery? AGK [•] 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, AGK, if it were a threat the editor would not have said "See you in July" in February. I am sure he is smart enough not to give you a warning five months in advance...

He checkusered Selery and stated he (or she) was running socks to criticize and delete an article about an organization that has an offensive racial epithet in its name. At Selery's talkpage Anthony G. Kelly types the organization's name including the epithet, Selery attempts to elide it because of the epithet, for which Anthony G. Kelly blocks Selery's talkpage access, commenting on the pride he takes in blocking. Glancing at Selery's contribution history, it seems okay, quite heavy on talk and process stuff. "See you in July [at a Wikimedia event]" is not a threat, even in an argumentative context. Correct response is "what do you mean by that?" not "is that a threat?"

On Ruijie Song or Timotheus Canens you've got a trickier arb. He's decided to say as little as possible publicly, and even that editing is split between his accounts. He has quite a few accounts. He did not disclose all his accounts when he ran for Arbcom in December. His talkpage is auto-archived constantly so its a pain, an intentional one, to try to glean anything from that without digging through the archives. I did notice a week or so ago where some editor queried him there why Arbcom hadn't responded to his communications, and he replies, paraphrase from memory, "our non-response doesn't mean we didn't consider your comments, it just means we found your arguments unconvincing." So Ruijie favors essentially that editors' communications to Arbcom are prayer-type. Non-response doesn't mean the gods don't listen to you. Behind the scenes (on IRC?) and on the secretive Arbcom mailing list, I gather he runs his mouth a lot, though. What else? The guy is a prolific blocker, or at least he was, as an "SPI clerk." I'm convinced that if anyone ever goes back to audit his blocks, which no-one ever will, he or she will find a combined error/abuse rate of 30 to 50 percent, in other words he doesn't understand the data he's reading to make the block determination, or he's just peeved for one reason or other.

On the question of naming these guys, I've said this before, but I think when you name them, you accord them personal responsibility beyond pseudonym. The reason to do that is that their administrative actions affect others, for example Peter Damian, above. You name the arbitrators, you can improve their behavior. It's easier to be a tough guy blocker of hundreds from a pseudonym and a pseudonymous email account where you don't even bother to answer your emails. When your name is put on it, when the affected people have an answer to "who would say and do these things?!" your behavior is likely to improve, and it's really better for all concerned.

Edited for format and to clip blinky emoticon only.

[dogbiscuit]

DIY lawyering is easy if you have the right law guide.

What I have found in quasi-judicial hearings and inquiries is that the Inspector is reluctant to quote a lay-person's opinion but they will happily name barristers and others who make legal arguments. I am of the view that this is to avoid being challenged on appeal - a barrister saying something has more weight than a lay-person, the Inspector can show they have been reasonable, therefore if the Inspector has a choice they will look to the most significant source they can find. In one planning appeal, we made a novel argument that a barrister simply repeated the next day. The barrister's statement was the one that appeared in the ruling.

So anyway, with the right book, anyone can be a lawyer - after all, that is what most lawyers depend on, knowing where to look up the current interpretation of the law. Most court cases don't depend on novel interpretations, and courts give significant leeway to lay people fighting their own cases. However, what a layperson can't do is fire off a warning legal letter that will give the other side pause for thought and bring them to the negotiating table.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Looks like besides everything else Anthony G. Kelly is also an idiot
This exchange is taking place in February:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... ly_blocked

... See you in July. Selery (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"See you in July": is that a threat, Selery? AGK [•] 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, AGK, if it were a threat the editor would not have said "See you in July" in February. I am sure he is smart enough not to give you a warning five months in advance. :fool:

Selery returned as "Weltoners" a few days later, and Selery kept on returning:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Michaeldsuarez/Sockpuppetry

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaeldsuarez/Sockpuppetry

Selery is also active on the mailing lists, including "Advocacy Advisors". He's probably editing enwiki and uploading graphs and charts onto Commons right now.

[lilburne]

DIY lawyering is easy if you have the right law guide.

What I have found in quasi-judicial hearings and inquiries is that the Inspector is reluctant to quote a lay-person's opinion but they will happily name barristers and others who make legal arguments. I am of the view that this is to avoid being challenged on appeal - a barrister saying something has more weight than a lay-person, the Inspector can show they have been reasonable, therefore if the Inspector has a choice they will look to the most significant source they can find. In one planning appeal, we made a novel argument that a barrister simply repeated the next day. The barrister's statement was the one that appeared in the ruling.

So anyway, with the right book, anyone can be a lawyer - after all, that is what most lawyers depend on, knowing where to look up the current interpretation of the law. Most court cases don't depend on novel interpretations, and courts give significant leeway to lay people fighting their own cases. However, what a layperson can't do is fire off a warning legal letter that will give the other side pause for thought and bring them to the negotiating table.

Spot on. They all work out of the same song book, and indeed the trick is in knowing which book that is. For all areas of law there are at most two that are given great reverence. What you will find is that your 'novel' interpretation isn't that novel and has been dismissed plenty of times before, you will always lose on that basis. However, alongside that dismissal will be a line that better covers the particular circumstances and which is almost always a cast iron win.

Being a layperson will give you an advantage. You will get significant leeway that the other side won't be afforded. The judiciary and court officials will also help you as they won't to avoid a procedural appeal. I always had a tame lawyer backstage advising. So long as they aren't officially representing you you can play fast and loose with the system.

[Triptych]

I wasn't sure about the unconditional agreement, but at the beginning of April there was an family problem caused by a life-threatening illness, and so I agreed to the conditions on 23 April in order to reach a prompt settlement.

I am sorry to hear about this Peter, and I'll meditate a moment to hope that whomever gets well soon, and in any event that there is not an whole lot of suffering involved.

I agree with what Kohser said, if WMF is steering you to a lawyer because it can't make Arbcom answer its mail, be unabashed in contacting him or her and consuming his or her time until your concerns are addressed. He or she will get paid.

[Peter Damian]

I wasn't sure about the unconditional agreement, but at the beginning of April there was an family problem caused by a life-threatening illness, and so I agreed to the conditions on 23 April in order to reach a prompt settlement.

I am sorry to hear about this Peter, and I'll meditate a moment to hope that whomever gets well soon, and in any event that there is not an whole lot of suffering involved.

I agree with what Kohser said, if WMF is steering you to a lawyer because it can't make Arbcom answer its mail, be unabashed in contacting him or her and consuming his or her time until your concerns are addressed. He or she will get paid.

That's very kind. It's progressive and incurable but avoiding suffering is the main thing.

[Vigilant]

I wasn't sure about the unconditional agreement, but at the beginning of April there was an family problem caused by a life-threatening illness, and so I agreed to the conditions on 23 April in order to reach a prompt settlement.

I am sorry to hear about this Peter, and I'll meditate a moment to hope that whomever gets well soon, and in any event that there is not an whole lot of suffering involved.

I agree with what Kohser said, if WMF is steering you to a lawyer because it can't make Arbcom answer its mail, be unabashed in contacting him or her and consuming his or her time until your concerns are addressed. He or she will get paid.

Better yet, be sure to do some diligence on the attorney and make them up a biographical article on teh wiki...

I can create a couple of insulting socks and show the lawyer how things really work.

[Poetlister]

If the WMF has a legal presence in this country, can it be sued?

The WMF has no legal presence outside the USA. WMF UK is not an authorised part of WMF in that sense, and if you tried to sue them, they'd soon tell you that.

[Anroth]

If the WMF has a legal presence in this country, can it be sued?

The WMF has no legal presence outside the USA. WMF UK is not an authorised part of WMF in that sense, and if you tried to sue them, they'd soon tell you that.

Jimbo lives in the UK. He has de-facto powers over the wiki in that he can (although he doesnt) exercise powers over content, banning users etc. As do many administrators and and any uk-based arbcom members. Any of them located in the UK can be potentially summoned to court. Or requested to attend third party arbitration. It doesnt require that they are an employee, they have the power and ability to take/reverse an action - therefore they can be liable for actions taken. See France dragging that admin into their security offices and forcing him to remove content.

WMUK is a registered UK charity. They funnel money directly to the WMF. They also presented themselves before parliament as having control over content. So 'we dont represent the WMF legally' is not actually a defence for them at this point.

You probably couldn't successfully sue the WMF. However as the WMF has de-centralised its operation of wikipedia globally, anyone with admin+ powers located in the UK is potentially able to be sued.

The WMUK are actually more at risk due to their registered charity status. And as I recall, Peter's issues were mostly with the WMUK crowd, who certainly *are* able to be dragged into court. Although again, I think he was heading into third-party arbitration route. (Which is actually quite cheap, has teeth, and has consequences if one party plays silly buggers).

[dogbiscuit]

If the WMF has a legal presence in this country, can it be sued?

The WMF has no legal presence outside the USA. WMF UK is not an authorised part of WMF in that sense, and if you tried to sue them, they'd soon tell you that.

Jimbo lives in the UK. He has de-facto powers over the wiki in that he can (although he doesnt) exercise powers over content, banning users etc. As do many administrators and and any uk-based arbcom members. Any of them located in the UK can be potentially summoned to court. Or requested to attend third party arbitration. It doesnt require that they are an employee, they have the power and ability to take/reverse an action - therefore they can be liable for actions taken. See France dragging that admin into their security offices and forcing him to remove content.

WMUK is a registered UK charity. They funnel money directly to the WMF. They also presented themselves before parliament as having control over content. So 'we dont represent the WMF legally' is not actually a defence for them at this point.

You probably couldn't successfully sue the WMF. However as the WMF has de-centralised its operation of wikipedia globally, anyone with admin+ powers located in the UK is potentially able to be sued.

The WMUK are actually more at risk due to their registered charity status. And as I recall, Peter's issues were mostly with the WMUK crowd, who certainly *are* able to be dragged into court. Although again, I think he was heading into third-party arbitration route. (Which is actually quite cheap, has teeth, and has consequences if one party plays silly buggers).

I concur with my learned friend.

[lilburne]

One might be able to do a Pinochet on the whole lot of them when they come over next year.

[roger_pearse]

If the WMF has a legal presence in this country, can it be sued?

The WMF has no legal presence outside the USA. WMF UK is not an authorised part of WMF in that sense, and if you tried to sue them, they'd soon tell you that.

Um, if it has a lawyer in Manchester, surely it does have a legal presence? (Confused)

On the other issue... did I read here that the WMF did a takeover of WMF UK recently? Involving taking control of its bank account, etc? Because if so, I don't quite see how the WMF could deny having control of the WMF UK. In which case, it manifestly does have a UK presence. (Although a real lawyer would doubtless laugh at my naivety here).

[dogbiscuit]

On the other issue... did I read here that the WMF did a takeover of WMF UK recently? Involving taking control of its bank account, etc?

I don't recall that, and in fact it would be highly improper because the trustees are the only legal authority over the charity and its assets. I think you are getting confused (which is easy enough) with the WMF altering the way they gather money. When WMUK was set up, they gathered the UK money and processed it, and then took the decision (which had to be their own independent choice, not under the orders of WMF) to hand the money over. This year the WMF forwent the ability to collect tax rebates and decided to take the money straight away. As the cost of WMUK collecting the money appeared to be giving them a grant of £500k for doing sweet FA and giving them a headache, the loss of the tax was a bargain. WMUK must remain entirely independent of WMF and be operated in the interests of WMUK's aims and objects, not the WMF.

[Vigilant]

On the other issue... did I read here that the WMF did a takeover of WMF UK recently? Involving taking control of its bank account, etc?

I don't recall that, and in fact it would be highly improper because the trustees are the only legal authority over the charity and its assets. I think you are getting confused (which is easy enough) with the WMF altering the way they gather money. When WMUK was set up, they gathered the UK money and processed it, and then took the decision (which had to be their own independent choice, not under the orders of WMF) to hand the money over. This year the WMF forwent the ability to collect tax rebates and decided to take the money straight away. As the cost of WMUK collecting the money appeared to be giving them a grant of £500k for doing sweet FA and giving them a headache, the loss of the tax was a bargain. WMUK must remain entirely independent of WMF and be operated in the interests of WMUK's aims and objects, not the WMF.

How does that even work?
WMUK is the registered charity. The donations are flowing to that charity.
Where does the WMF get the legal standing to confiscate these monies?

Am I being dense?

[Wer900]

On the other issue... did I read here that the WMF did a takeover of WMF UK recently? Involving taking control of its bank account, etc?

I don't recall that, and in fact it would be highly improper because the trustees are the only legal authority over the charity and its assets. I think you are getting confused (which is easy enough) with the WMF altering the way they gather money. When WMUK was set up, they gathered the UK money and processed it, and then took the decision (which had to be their own independent choice, not under the orders of WMF) to hand the money over. This year the WMF forwent the ability to collect tax rebates and decided to take the money straight away. As the cost of WMUK collecting the money appeared to be giving them a grant of £500k for doing sweet FA and giving them a headache, the loss of the tax was a bargain. WMUK must remain entirely independent of WMF and be operated in the interests of WMUK's aims and objects, not the WMF.

Now I know why the WMF has chapters as we know them, rather than a more cohesive global organization.

[Peter Damian]

If the WMF has a legal presence in this country, can it be sued?

The WMF has no legal presence outside the USA. WMF UK is not an authorised part of WMF in that sense, and if you tried to sue them, they'd soon tell you that.

Um, if it has a lawyer in Manchester, surely it does have a legal presence? (Confused)

The lawyer is acting for Arbcom, not for WMF. WMF are probably paying for the lawyer, of course, but there is no way of finding out. Or is there?

[TungstenCarbide]

On the other issue... did I read here that the WMF did a takeover of WMF UK recently? Involving taking control of its bank account, etc?

I don't recall that, and in fact it would be highly improper because the trustees are the only legal authority over the charity and its assets. I think you are getting confused (which is easy enough) with the WMF altering the way they gather money. When WMUK was set up, they gathered the UK money and processed it, and then took the decision (which had to be their own independent choice, not under the orders of WMF) to hand the money over. This year the WMF forwent the ability to collect tax rebates and decided to take the money straight away. As the cost of WMUK collecting the money appeared to be giving them a grant of £500k for doing sweet FA and giving them a headache, the loss of the tax was a bargain. WMUK must remain entirely independent of WMF and be operated in the interests of WMUK's aims and objects, not the WMF.

How does that even work?
WMUK is the registered charity. The donations are flowing to that charity.
Where does the WMF get the legal standing to confiscate these monies?

Am I being dense?

Just guessing here - WMUK's fundraising is based on being part of Wikipedia; trademark, artwork, etc... Without this, WMUK has no value. The WMF can effectively shut them down in this way.

[lilburne]

If the WMF has a legal presence in this country, can it be sued?

The WMF has no legal presence outside the USA. WMF UK is not an authorised part of WMF in that sense, and if you tried to sue them, they'd soon tell you that.

Um, if it has a lawyer in Manchester, surely it does have a legal presence? (Confused)

The lawyer is acting for Arbcom, not for WMF. WMF are probably paying for the lawyer, of course, but there is no way of finding out. Or is there?

Ask, do you not have the right to know whether you are dealing with a bunch of twelve arsewipes or some shadowy organisation with $millions at its disposal that happens to be using said arsewipes as a shield?

[Poetlister]

The lawyer is acting for Arbcom, not for WMF. WMF are probably paying for the lawyer, of course, but there is no way of finding out. Or is there?

Arbcom is clearly not a legal entity, and presumably has no funds of its own unless NewYorkBrad is dipping into his own capacious pockets. So it would be very odd if WMF is not paying for it in some way.

[Peter Damian]

This is an interesting discussion.

The IP is not me, by the way.

[Peter Damian]

Not going to parse the whole thread, or get into the issue of when people should make stands and when work with the system. But the whole concept that some tiny group of people at ANI deciding in a few hours to ban someone is a complete joke. And it's Orwellian to call that "the will of the Community". It's a very small group and selected for an interest in drama and banning. Yeah, there's a few liberals who attend, but it's still not reflecting content creators who are turned off by the whole shebang. Or people who don't check Wiki obsessively every few hours. And when you compare the duration and content to how long an Arbcom case or an RFC runs (and how logorrheic they are), it's night and day. Of course, it's the reality, just how a lot of things are reality. But I think if you're attuned to language, then "will of the Community" is kind of screwy.TCO (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =562743648

Right. Nothing to add.

[crypt.net]

The lawyer is acting for Arbcom, not for WMF. WMF are probably paying for the lawyer, of course, but there is no way of finding out. Or is there?

Arbcom is clearly not a legal entity, and presumably has no funds of its own unless NewYorkBrad is dipping into his own capacious pockets. So it would be very odd if WMF is not paying for it in some way.

To what degree are the finances of a 501(c)3 charity public? Every last line item in the ledger, or rolled up to vague "Legal Costs"?

Anyways, the WMF position was pretty clear in the past: editors are responsible for their actions, not the WMF. As much as the WMF would like or not like to protect their editors (I strongly suspect they don't give a shit), this position is driven by the section 230 bullshit. So, if this analysis is right, if the WMF is now paying to defend editors for their on-wiki actions, that strikes me as news-worthy information.

Sounds like a useful question to ask them. Mr. Damien could also ask the lawyer who their client is. If legal machinery is ever cranked into action, process service will require some real names and addresses ...

[Peter Damian]

if the WMF is now paying to defend editors for their on-wiki actions, that strikes me as news-worthy information.

That is my understanding.

[neved]

if the WMF is now paying to defend editors for their on-wiki actions, that strikes me as news-worthy information.

That is my understanding.

Well, remember this? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_an ... rogram/FAQ

What is the Legal Fees Assistance Program?

The Legal Fees Assistance Program is an initiative proposed by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to help eligible users in support roles in the unlikely case that they face legal action as a defendant because of their role on Wikimedia projects. The program may be available, at WMF’s sole discretion, to assist these community members in finding qualified lawyers or to pay for some or all of the fees and costs associated with their legal defense, facilitating their ability to defend, if ever necessary, against legal proceedings.
Who does the Legal Fees Assistance Program cover?

The Legal Fees Assistance Program may provide assistance to eligible users in support roles who donate time and effort to any Wikimedia project in specified community administrator, arbitrator, email response, or project governance capacities. This includes people such as administrators, stewards, bureaucrats, arbitration committee members, and email response team members.

The program is intended to cover eligible users in a support role in every Wikimedia project, in any language, in any country. Coverage is subject to WMF’s sole discretion.