Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ JoshuaZ _ JoshuaZ looks at Section 230

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

From http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087245.html:

QUOTE
> "Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was
> denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press
> charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she
> subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the
> authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far
> easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case --
> especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or
> herself to authorities."
>
> (The rest of the post is definitely worth reading. It can be found at
> http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html
> It is, of course, in Ms. Martin's inimitable style; but she's not
> wrong on this.)

Well, I'm not generally a fan of Kelly but this makes an excellent point. My only concern is that having the Foundation get that involved could intertwine the Foundation with the individual projects more than we want. The Foundation is more important than any one editor and we must make sure that it is not liable. That said, this might work. Has anyone discussed it with Foundation higher ups.

The top of this quotation is someone quoting Kelly Martin. The last paragraph is from JoshuaZ commenting on Kelly's words.

At the same time that JoshuaZ is making this astute legal observation, he is also attempting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#Daniel_Brandt_.28redirect.29 on Daniel_Brandt to reverse Doc's deletion of same. JoshuaZ is working at cross-purposes here. If that redirect gets restored I intend to try harder to isolate Wikipedia in the court of public opinion.

Why would I want to do this? Because if I try harder, Slim and others will interpret this as "stalking," and then maybe they will convince the Foundation to send me a cease and desist. Already Jimbo is on record as generally sympathetic with the "cyberstalking" point of view. At that point I'll have a piece of paper from the Foundation that pretty much signs away their presumed Section 230 immunity in my case, and I'll be ready to go to court.

Right now my feeling is that I don't have a case because:
1. my Wikipedia presence in the search engines has been greatly diminished since the redirect was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&user=Doc+glasgow&page=&pattern=&limit=100&offset=0, and
2. the 2,600 history versions of Daniel_Brandt are difficult to find, thanks to Doc's more recent maneuver that nuked JoshuaZ's GFDL silliness.

If the redirect is restored, I believe that I have a case once again. Also, I sense that the statute of limitations is reset for defamation and invasion of privacy under Florida law. My next step will be to work harder to enlighten the public about the true nature of Wikipedia, and hope that someday the Foundation will see fit to send me a cease and desist. Then I'll sue them.

My instincts tell me that their presumed Section 230 immunity will be much weaker once I receive a cease and desist from the Foundation. The only boring part is that I'll have to create a bunch of socks and try to edit Wikipedia directly, so that I'm worthy of a C&D of this nature. Fortunately, I think there are enough mentions of me on various Talk pages that are sock-accessible, which means all I have to do is go in and delete them every place they're found. That's just to earn the C&D. The more effective part will be my escalating efforts to interest mainstream media in exposing the true nature of Wikipedia. As effective as that may be, it's not C&D-worthy, unless and until Mike Godwin loses his judgement.

I could sue JoshuaZ for stalking me on Wikipedia, I suppose, but that's useless. There are dozens of wikifascist stalkers ready and willing to take his place.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 11th December 2007, 7:50pm) *

From http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087245.html:
QUOTE
> "Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was
> denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press
> charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she
> subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the
> authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far
> easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case --
> especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or
> herself to authorities."
>
> (The rest of the post is definitely worth reading. It can be found at
> http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html
> It is, of course, in Ms. Martin's inimitable style; but she's not
> wrong on this.)

Well, I'm not generally a fan of Kelly but this makes an excellent point. My only concern is that having the Foundation get that involved could intertwine the Foundation with the individual projects more than we want. The Foundation is more important than any one editor and we must make sure that it is not liable. That said, this might work. Has anyone discussed it with Foundation higher ups.

The top of this quotation is someone quoting Kelly Martin. The last paragraph is from JoshuaZ commenting on Kelly's words.

At the same time that JoshuaZ is making this astute legal observation, he is also attempting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#Daniel_Brandt_.28redirect.29 on Daniel_Brandt to reverse Doc's deletion of same. JoshuaZ is working at cross-purposes here. If that redirect gets restored I intend to try harder to isolate Wikipedia in the court of public opinion.

Why would I want to do this? Because if I try harder, Slim and others will interpret this as "stalking," and then maybe they will convince the Foundation to send me a cease and desist. Already Jimbo is on record as generally sympathetic with the "cyberstalking" point of view. At that point I'll have a piece of paper from the Foundation that pretty much signs away their presumed Section 230 immunity in my case, and I'll be ready to go to court.

Right now my feeling is that I don't have a case because:
1. my Wikipedia presence in the search engines has been greatly diminished since the redirect was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&user=Doc+glasgow&page=&pattern=&limit=100&offset=0, and
2. the 2,600 history versions of Daniel_Brandt are difficult to find, thanks to Doc's more recent maneuver that nuked JoshuaZ's GFDL silliness.

If the redirect is restored, I believe that I have a case once again. Also, I sense that the statute of limitations is reset for defamation and invasion of privacy under Florida law. My next step will be to work harder to enlighten the public about the true nature of Wikipedia, and hope that someday the Foundation will see fit to send me a cease and desist. Then I'll sue them.

My instincts tell me that their presumed Section 230 immunity will be much weaker once I receive a cease and desist from the Foundation. The only boring part is that I'll have to create a bunch of socks and try to edit Wikipedia directly, so that I'm worthy of a C&D of this nature. Fortunately, I think there are enough mentions of me on various Talk pages that are sock-accessible, which means all I have to do is go in and delete them every place they're found. That's just to earn the C&D. The more effective part will be my escalating efforts to interest mainstream media in exposing the true nature of Wikipedia. As effective as that may be, it's not C&D-worthy, unless and until Mike Godwin loses his judgement.

I could sue JoshuaZ for stalking me on Wikipedia, I suppose, but that's useless. There are dozens of wikifascist stalkers ready and willing to take his place.


I seems to me everyone is making a salad of DMCA, C&D, CDA, Section 230 Immunity, Sec 1030 Computer Intrusion, and ordinary stalking. In such a mix all anyone can do is hope their intuition is good.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 11th December 2007, 7:22pm) *

I seems to me everyone is making a salad of DMCA, C&D, CDA, Section 230 Immunity, Sec 1030 Computer Intrusion, and ordinary stalking. In such a mix all anyone can do is hope their intuition is good.

In such a mix, one's only recourse is the court of public opinion — unless you think it's fun to make lawyers even richer. There is no reasonable appeal process within Wikipedia that allows people like me to get a fair hearing.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

I read some of those posts where some admins were suggesting taking legal action against users, the sort of thing that would get any other user banned immediately.

I cannot wait for the day that any official entity of Wikipedia initiates a civil action against any of its users. There will be decade-long feeding frenzy that will make Jaws look like a bowl full of dead guppies.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 11th December 2007, 8:30pm) *
There is no reasonable appeal process within Wikipedia that allows people like me to get a fair hearing.

There is no reasonable appeal process within Wikipedia that allows any aggrieved party to get a fair hearing.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 12th December 2007, 2:16am) *
There is no reasonable appeal process within Wikipedia that allows any aggrieved party to get a fair hearing.

True, but the situation with biographies is especially outrageous.

FORUM Image

QUOTE
"You do not get to choose whether or not an article on you appears in Wikipedia, and you have no veto power over its contents. The article can cast you as a genius or an imbecile, a respected scientist or a crackpot... A vandal could replace a page, any page, with total gibberish. The page on Einstein might have a statement inserted to the effect that he was a Nazi collaborator, or that his theories have been totally discredited, or that he was a silicon-based life form from Proxima Centauri... Wikipedia does not operate by your rules but by its own conventions; I suggest you learn to accept it... I can assure you resistance is futile." —Wikifascist KSmrq reads the riot act to Bernard Haisch, subject of a disputed biography, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times, July 24, 2006.

What's a guy to do? He appeals to public opinion. This will be the well-deserved death of Wikipedia, and sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Are you guys followinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9&diff=prev&oldid=177117449#Daniel_Brandt_.28redirect.29

Daniel, why don't you just sue Joshua Zelinsky already? Maybe he'd finally learn something about the law.

Yale Law School apparently has failed him.

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 12th December 2007, 4:44pm) *

Yale Law School apparently has failed him.


Yale is not doing very well by the USA at all these days. That bush legacy situation was not helpful, and is much too late to refactor.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 12th December 2007, 10:44am) *
Daniel, why don't you just sue Joshua Zelinsky already? Maybe he'd finally learn something about the law.

I think JoshuaZ is taking it out on me because of what his brother did to him the womb. I cannot decide whether to cut him some slack or challenge him to a boxing match.

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2675:
QUOTE
IT IS HARD TO MAKE GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT TWINS at Yale because they come in all shapes and sizes — literally. Take the Zelinsky twins, for example. Aaron and Joshua Zelinsky, DC '06, and TC '07, respectively, are fraternal twins who don't look anything alike. In fact, Aaron is five-foot-ten 160 lbs. and Joshua is five-foot-two 100 lbs. "I stole his food in the womb," Aaron explained, "I had veins going from my placenta into his. I like to say that I bled him dry." Not only are they different looking, but they are in different class years—they've been a year apart since kindergarten. So why did they both decide to attend Yale? "I'm from New Haven and was convinced that it was the last place on earth I wanted to go to school — but then I fell in love. And the same thing happened to Josh," Aaron said.

Aaron and Josh have carved out different niches for themselves at Yale; while Aaron is on the debate team and hangs out with his FOOT buddies, Josh is very involved in the Slifka Center. Aaron explained, "We're very, very close, in some respects, but in terms of other stuff, we're very, very different." "Actually, people are often shocked when I tell them I have a twin," he added.


Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Apparently brother Aaron's placenta-food-theft stole something crucial which supplied neo-natal brain development.

That boy behaves as if he's in constant need of a vitamin-B shot. Not to mention a basic course in http://www.springerlink.com/content/xqgr4816p6ftu63e/, and remedial charm school training.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I added this comment to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9#Daniel_Brandt_.28redirect.29 discussion:

QUOTE
I appreciate Doc's efforts to solve the problems I mentioned on the WP:BLP/Noticeboard on December 1. In the event that the redirect deletion currently under consideration here results in the restoration of the Daniel_Brandt redirect, I plan to petition the Foundation to install a change in the Wikipedia software.

When Wikipedia deletes a page, the software does not return a 404 "not found" in the headers. And when it redirects a page, it does not return a 301 or 302 "redirect" in the headers. In both cases it still returns a 200 "OK" in the headers. In the first case the little page says that a file does not exist by this name. In the second case, the file is the complete page of the target to which it was redirected.

In terms of search engine behavior, the reason why a deleted page quickly wipes out the search engine juice that previously built up for that page, is because a single one-line header is added to that page: meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow". On the redirected page, this header is absent.

I contend that this is a programming error that violates my privacy. The proper way to handle a redirect on Wikipedia is to use a five second refresh to the target page, with a note on the instant page that it will be redirected in a few seconds, and if it doesn't, then click on this new URL. Then at the same time, you can include the "noindex,nofollow" in the headers. The effect of this would be to deny search-engine juice to the target page, for any and all juice that built up for the instant page before the redirect was installed. The juice for the target page will have to be derived on the basis of its own independent merits.

Since this is a matter of correcting a programming bug that has privacy implications, I will request that the Foundation instruct their employee software developers to install this change. I feel that in this situation, there is little chance that the Foundation can presume Section 230 immunity as an excuse to ignore my request. —Daniel Brandt

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I think JoshuaZ is so stupid that he's inadvertently on my side. I attempted to notify the Wikipedia "community" in good faith about my plans to take up the matter with the Foundation if the redirect is re-installed, and JoshuaZ deleted my comment and blocked my IP. This clearly establishes that I attempted to exhaust my administrative remedies with the "community" and was rebuffed. In turn, this means that any attempt by the Foundation's counsel to claim that my petition is a matter that I should have introduced to the community, will be unconvincing.

I'll try to stick it on Doc's talk page. Maybe he'll revert JoshuaZ.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

I award Joshua Z this barnstar FORUM Image

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Wow, I placed a "thank you" on Doc's page and JoshuaZ, Cberlet, jpgordon, and FeloniousMonk went bananas because I'm banned. Viridae (an admin) tried to restore my "thank you" and Cla68, FeloniousMonk, and MONGO threatened to burn him at the stake on his own talk page.

I must be doing something right! This is just like the good ol' days on Wikipedia. They haven't learned a thing in the last two years.


LATER EDIT: Cla68 deleted; he was only informing Viridae of the situation. Wikifascist jpgordon implies to Viridae that banned users have no BLP rights.

Posted by: Amarkov

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 12th December 2007, 9:28pm) *

Wow, I placed a "thank you" on Doc's page and JoshuaZ, Cberlet, jpgordon, and FeloniousMonk went bananas because I'm banned. Viridae (an admin) tried to restore my "thank you" and Cla68, FeloniousMonk, and MONGO threatened to burn him at the stake on his own talk page.

I must be doing something right! This is just like the good ol' days on Wikipedia. They haven't learned a thing in the last two years.


Well, think about it. If they admitted that banned editors saying "thank you" probably wasn't part of an evil plot, they'd have to admit that people aren't banned becasue they are evil demons. And then people might start wanting to actually treat you guys as human beings!

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 12th December 2007, 11:28pm) *

I must be doing something right! This is just like the good ol' days on Wikipedia. They haven't learned a thing in the last two years.

They don't want to stop playing with you. You are a human XBOX to them. sad.gif

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I filed an OTRS via email with a copy to Brion Vibber. My experience with OTRS is that they just throw stuff from me in the trash. And now they're in the middle of moving to sexy San Francisco, which gives them an excuse to "lose" anything I send to the office. Whoever reads my OTRS will probably be afraid to verify to me that it was received. Does anyone have an address where Mike Godwin would get a registered letter? I think Godwin hangs out in Washington, DC.

As that case in France showed, you have to make sure that they cannot deny that they received your communication. I don't know if the Foundation office is sneaky or just plain incompetent.

I intend to pursue the "software bug on Wikipedia redirects" issue. It's not a redirect by any definition used by webmasters. It's a 100 percent substitution, which means that all search-engine juice accumulated from the past history of the redirected page is instantly added to the target page — making the target page hyper-sensitive to the name of the person that used to have the bio, whenever that name is used as the search term on any search engine. This is a serious privacy issue, now that AfDs increasingly use the merge and "redirect" option on difficult cases.

From the perspective of the hapless BLP victim, it means that now he has to watch the target page after the redirect, because all the wikifascists will migrate to that page to insert their defamatory and/or privacy-invading edits. If the target page was buried in the search engine results in a search for that person's name, he wouldn't have to check it every day.

If the deletion of the redirect on my bio that Doc did survives the current DRV, I won't have a case to pursue. But it doesn't look good and I think Doc might lose this one.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 12th December 2007, 2:16am) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 11th December 2007, 8:30pm) *
There is no reasonable appeal process within Wikipedia that allows people like me to get a fair hearing.

There is no reasonable appeal process within Wikipedia that allows any aggrieved party to get a fair hearing.



You are correct.

It is not like a real live court system, where anyone is guaranteed a hearing.

At WP a group of kids may decide to listen and learn, or they may just look away.

Please do not talk about "due process" at a place like Wikipedia, because it does not exist.

Posted by: Moulton

The absence of due process at Wikipedia is a scientific discovery that nonetheless requires evidence. I now have good evidence for the absence of due process.

Posted by: KStreetSlave

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 12th December 2007, 4:44pm) *

Are you guys followinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9&diff=prev&oldid=177117449#Daniel_Brandt_.28redirect.29

Daniel, why don't you just sue Joshua Zelinsky already? Maybe he'd finally learn something about the law.

Yale Law School apparently has failed him.


That's because they don't really teach anything at YLS. Somehow it keeps ranking as a T4 school, based mostly on prestige, but they don't really have a curriculum there. Considering they don't even have grades at all for first years and honors/pass/lowpass/fail for everyone else....

The personal statement on their essay is 250 words long. What can you say with 250 words?

Oh, and they don't have required courses after the first semester, so you can be glad to know that when you graduate from there with your courses in "virtual economies in second life" you'll be well prepared for the real world.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

The foul deed of reversing Doc has been done. The closing admin Xoloz restored the redirect, but felt it was unnecessary to move back the entire 2,600-version history. However, wikifascist JoshuaZ went ahead and moved it back. Now I have to watch the PIR article every day for the rest of my life.

There is no acknowledgement from OTRS that I sent them anything. I don't think OTRS exists at all; I have been jostling with Wikipedia for more than two years and I've never seen any evidence that it exists. I believe it's a black hole. Some admins pretend it exists in order to evade responsibility for blocking those with BLP complaints, but it's only a trick.

Posted by: Somey

We'll have to take steps... If this isn't undone within 48 hours, I'm going to have to reverse my earlier positions on both Google-indexing of this entire forum (currently disabled) and redaction of personal names (which we've apparently been far too accommodating about, judging by this).

If we reverse those policies, I'm going to make damn sure EVERYONE on Wikipedia knows that it was JoshuaZ who made it happen.

Posted by: Somey

OK, I'm just going to bump this up in the hopes that it increases Joshie's chances of seeing it.

We're going to wait until, say, 2 AM UTC tomorrow night, maybe a little earlier - that's about 9 PM my time, or roughly 24 hours from now. At that point, if the history of that article is still available behind the redirect, we'll lift the bot restrictions, and add a little banner to the top of index.php that says something like this:

QUOTE
Due to the recent actions of Wikipedia administrator Joshua Zelinsky (aka User:JoshuaZ), this website will no longer hide its "Editors" forum from searchbots. All publicly-viewable material will, from now on, also be listed and indexed on all major search engines.


That's fairly concise and understandable, isn't it? I mean, sure, it's not in machine language, but Josh should manage to get the gist of it at least.

We'll keep that up for a week or two, maybe three weeks - it'll be unsightly, but it should get the point across well enough.

Posted by: Moulton

To my mind, anyone in a position of responsibility and authority at Wikipedia (that includes all admins) should be accountable and hence not anonymous. Note that Google's Knol is adopting the policy that all articles are signed by credentialed authors.

If people want to write opinion pieces, let them use blogs. If they want to write encyclopedic articles (especially about identifiable living people), let them take off the mask of anonymous cowardice and become responsible and ethical biographers.

Posted by: Somey

Are you sure you're in the right thread, Moulton...? JoshuaZ isn't anonymous, though he was originally. He gave up his anonymity in writing this http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19805, implying that a fellow Yale student should be expelled for creating "hoax articles" on Wikipedia - which in turn could arguably have been deemed legitimate experiments to determine WP's ability to twig to hoax articles. (Though to be fair, they probably weren't "legitimate experiments," really.)

All I'm saying is that we've been fighting them over this and other BLP-related matters for two years now. Two years, and when we finally reach the point where we can finally call a truce, stand down, and maybe even end the hostilities altogether - in effect, stopping the madness - who comes along and snatches it all away?

Josh Zelinsky, that's who.

And for no reason other than sheer, malignant vindictiveness and spite. I don't care if he occasionally says reasonable things or even takes an apparently fair-minded approach to problems every once in a while... This is a person who thrives on causing, and especially prolonging, misery in others - including his own peers on Wikipedia. If not especially his peers on Wikipedia. Sure, some of them may deserve it, but a good 90 percent of them do not. Not after two years, anyway.

Posted by: Moulton

My comment goes beyond Joshua Zelinsky to the larger question of accountability for all those exercising editorial, supervisory, or administrative power at Wikipedia.

Posted by: Amarkov

And of course, carrying this out will cause all links to WR to be even more agressively removed, thus increasing readership much better than anything else could. Sad thing is, this will still work even though I just said what would happen.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 13th December 2007, 1:47pm) *

Whoever reads my OTRS will probably be afraid to verify to me that it was received. Does anyone have an address where Mike Godwin would get a registered letter?


I don't have that, but according to Florida Division of Corporations the registered agent for the Foundation is:

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S PINE ISLAND RD
PLANTATION FL 33324 US

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:03pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 13th December 2007, 1:47pm) *

Whoever reads my OTRS will probably be afraid to verify to me that it was received. Does anyone have an address where Mike Godwin would get a registered letter?


I don't have that, but according to Florida Division of Corporations the registered agent for the Foundation is:

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S PINE ISLAND RD
PLANTATION FL 33324 US

You have to be kidding. That's almost as good as a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands. I had an attorney from Florida contact me several months ago. He was frustrated because he was trying to serve process on Wikimedia Foundation. He used one address he found, and that didn't work. I gave him another address for the Foundation that I found, and I don't know if that worked. I also gave him an address for Jimbo's residence, and pointed out that Jimbo was on the Board, but he's always traveling and it might be hard to find him, even if that residence address was still accurate.

I had to convince this attorney that as far as I know, there actually is a little office somewhere that's used by Cary Bass and Brion Vibber and (at the time) Carolyn Doran.

I think I'll ask Cade Metz (who interviewed me about SlimVirgin on November 28) for Godwin's telephone, and then call Godwin and ask him directly for 1) a fax number and 2) a street address where he personally is available to sign for registered mail.

About OTRS, I still haven't heard anything from them. How does that thing work? Since I've never seen it work, my impression is that at best, there's a list of emails, and volunteers get to cherry pick the ones they want to handle. The ones that don't get picked end up falling off the edge of the earth. Is that how it works?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 16th December 2007, 12:12pm) *
And of course, carrying this out will cause all links to WR to be even more agressively removed, thus increasing readership much better than anything else could. Sad thing is, this will still work even though I just said what would happen.

Hmm... Hard to say. I mean, we've considered taking this step at various times in the past, and if anything, the majority of people here have supported it (i.e., exposing the Editors forum to searchbots). Those of us who have preferred to keep it unindexed may have been operating under the assumption that there was at least some appreciation among the WP'ers for our having it that way, but I think that's been proven now to not be the case. So it comes down to a simple question of whether we want to try and be "nice" or not, but at some point niceness has to be reciprocated - otherwise, you're just being taken advantage of.

Beyond that, the brutal truth about this is that we can keep this sort of BLP opt-out advocacy up indefinitely, and as we keep it up we're going to gain influence and readership, just as we have all along. They can keep it up indefinitely too, as long as they have people willing to put in the time and effort - but as they keep it up, they're going to look increasingly vindictive, hypocritical, and quite frankly, dangerous to civilized society. Whereas if they end this now, as they very easily could, the vast majority of people will continue to think of having a BLP article in Wikipedia as a status symbol, and nothing to worry about. And the donations will keep coming in, assuming they can keep the organizational blundering relatively under control...

Anyway, we've already proven (as if we needed to) that their irrational hyperbole about "thousands of articles deleted" and "floods of deletion demands" and all the other terrorist-under-the-bed rhetoric is just that, irrational hyperbole. So the only reason they're still doing this now is to be assholes - any other excuse on their part is simply a lie.

So.... what other aces-in-the-hole do we have? Restoring redacted names might be one, though they obviously don't care about that in the slightest. And it's pretty clear they don't like the individually-dedicated subforums (like this one). I suppose it's not out of the question that we could remove the direct links to them from the main page, though everyone seems to like them so far.

Maybe we could put some cute LOLcats and puppy-dog images on the main page, just to try to put them in a better mood?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:52pm) *

I had to convince this attorney that as far as I know, there actually is a little office somewhere that's used by Cary Bass and Brion Vibber and (at the time) Carolyn Doran.
I think I'll ask Cade Metz (who interviewed me about SlimVirgin on November 28) for Godwin's telephone, and then call Godwin and ask him directly for 1) a fax number and 2) a street address where he personally is available to sign for registered mail.
Do that. Post it online for other people. Don't the have an office on 2nd street? or is that a po box?
And Mike Godwin is based in DC. (so he can lobby).
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:52pm) *

my impression is that at best, there's a list of emails, and volunteers get to cherry pick the ones they want to handle. The ones that don't get picked end up falling off the edge of the earth. Is that how it works?

I thought that this was the official technical procedure. Wasn't it? smile.gif

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:52pm) *

It work. I gave him another address for the Foundation that I found, and I don't know if that worked. I also gave him an address for Jimbo's residence, and pointed out that Jimbo was on the Board, but he's always traveling and it might be hard to find him, even if that residence address was still accurate.
He has a pa, I thought.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:52pm) *
QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:03pm) *
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S PINE ISLAND RD
PLANTATION FL 33324 US
You have to be kidding. That's almost as good as a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands...

More specifically, CT Corporation Systems is a contractor - they allow small firms and foundations to outsource their legal departments to a third-party registered agent, so that they don't have to maintain a permanent legal office.

http://ctadmin.ctadvantage.com/CTWebAdminApps/CTWebAdmin/pubcontent/RegisteredAgentServices.aspx

The fact that they're using them doesn't necessarily imply skullduggery, though - it may be this was a transitional step necessitated by their move to San Francisco, or just the fact that they're so spread-out in general (or specifically, with Mike Godwin being in the DC area). However, now that they're using them, it's very unlikely that they'll bring this stuff back in-house.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

The exact words of that attorney were, "That's not an office address, it is a UPS drop box, these idiots seemingly work from home."

Look here, and compare and contrast the two street addresses:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us

http://www.yellowpages.com/info-LMS55702798/UPS-Store-The

Can you spell B-L-A-C-K H-O-L-E?


Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Any new non-profit or private company can hire a registered owner for 200-300 bucks. Not a big deal, nor a scam.


Mike Godwin's phone number (from is talk page) +1–202–236–3448 Email: mneumonic@well.com

Call him, email him, or he gave a speech at American University Center for Social Media last week. Maybe they knonw how to reach him. Center for Social Media | School of Communication | American University mailing: 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20016-8080
office: 3201 New Mexico Avenue NW, Suite 395 | Washington, DC 20016-8080
socialmedia@american.edu | phone (202) 885-3107 | fax (202) 885-1309

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:26pm) *

The exact words of that attorney were, "That's not an office address, it is a UPS drop box, these idiots seemingly work from home."

Look here, and compare and contrast the two street addresses:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us

http://www.yellowpages.com/info-LMS55702798/UPS-Store-The

Can you spell B-L-A-C-K H-O-L-E?


Well, that explains why Carolyn Doran was COO of WMF from January....but only moved to Florida in March....God only knows where her temp job took place...

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:26pm) *

The exact words of that attorney were, "That's not an office address, it is a UPS drop box, these idiots seemingly work from home."

Look here, and compare and contrast the two street addresses:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us

http://www.yellowpages.com/info-LMS55702798/UPS-Store-The

Can you spell B-L-A-C-K H-O-L-E?

That's their postal address. They do have an office (or so it would appear). They just don't post it, so as that no one shows up at their door (Daniel?) and screams at them. Or goes,, "postal".

Wikimedia Foundation

Postal address

Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
200 2nd Ave. South #358
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
USA

Phone: +1-727-231-0101
Email: info@wikimedia.org
Fax: +1-727-258-0207

(note: we get a large number of calls; email or fax is always a better first option)



Here's a close but different address:

Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent:
[url=http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biografi_tokoh_yang_masih_hidup.html]Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
146 2nd St N, # 310:
St. Petersburg FL 33701:

United States: Fax: +1(727)258-0207[/url]

*blame the Indonesians for posting that online guys*

This could be it. I have heard their office is near their post box (rumors...) smile.gif

Oh, Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 146 2nd St N, # 310: St. Petersburg FL 33701: United States: Facsimile number: +1(727)258-0207 ...Slovenia was clueless enough to post it too, lol.

Also it is on the ANI, as the Jimmy Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive67#Merkeyaddress.

Whether that means "office" or "undisclosed locaction" or "hired help" I have no clue.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:53pm) *

They do have an office (or so it would appear). They just don't post it, so as that no one shows up at their door (Daniel?) and screams at them. Or goes,, "postal".

I think you have that backwards. It's so that no one shows up at their door and gets shot by their COO with a .357 Magnum.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:41pm) *
Any new non-profit or private company can hire a registered owner for 200-300 bucks. Not a big deal, nor a scam.

Exactly - it's all strictly legal and above-board. That's the whole point!

If your registered agent is in, say, Delaware (quite common - I believe Wikia's is there), and you're in California or Florida or DC, that really just adds an extra layer of liability protection to your organization, because any legal decision against you is going to have to go through a lot of extra inter-state bureaucracy before it results in any kind of forfeiture of assets. And you have to assume that the registered agent will be located in whatever state provides the most friendly venue for a liability case.

Anyone who wants to sue the Foundation isn't just presented with vague replies from them saying they should "contact individual WP editors" who are supposed to be the ones who are actually liable. They're also presented with problems of venue and jurisdiction, which could conceivably change right in the middle of their case preparations. It's just another deterrent against lawsuits, really. So... what do people have to do when they're being libelled, or just want potentially damaging material deleted?

They have to find out who the actual editors are in real life, don't they?

In effect, the Wikimedia Foundation encourages the identification, or what they call "stalking" and "outing," of its own anonymous volunteers. What's more, it always has, and it always will, by necessity. It's inherent to the whole system.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:52pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:03pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 13th December 2007, 1:47pm) *

Whoever reads my OTRS will probably be afraid to verify to me that it was received. Does anyone have an address where Mike Godwin would get a registered letter?


I don't have that, but according to Florida Division of Corporations the registered agent for the Foundation is:

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S PINE ISLAND RD
PLANTATION FL 33324 US

You have to be kidding. That's almost as good as a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands. I had an attorney from Florida contact me several months ago. He was frustrated because he was trying to serve process on Wikimedia Foundation. He used one address he found, and that didn't work. I gave him another address for the Foundation that I found, and I don't know if that worked. I also gave him an address for Jimbo's residence, and pointed out that Jimbo was on the Board, but he's always traveling and it might be hard to find him, even if that residence address was still accurate.

I had to convince this attorney that as far as I know, there actually is a little office somewhere that's used by Cary Bass and Brion Vibber and (at the time) Carolyn Doran.

I think I'll ask Cade Metz (who interviewed me about SlimVirgin on November 28) for Godwin's telephone, and then call Godwin and ask him directly for 1) a fax number and 2) a street address where he personally is available to sign for registered mail.

About OTRS, I still haven't heard anything from them. How does that thing work? Since I've never seen it work, my impression is that at best, there's a list of emails, and volunteers get to cherry pick the ones they want to handle. The ones that don't get picked end up falling off the edge of the earth. Is that how it works?


USPS certified return receipt requested to the registered agent is sufficient for service http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/10C69DF6FF15185085256B29004BF823/$FILE/301CIVIL.pdf?OpenElement of the pdf document. If they won't sign for it that will be sufficient cause for a trial court to grant substitute service (usually ordinary mail and posting at the courthouse.) If they then default, good. Yeah, its a pretty mickey mouse way of conducting business.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:02pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:53pm) *

They do have an office (or so it would appear). They just don't post it, so as that no one shows up at their door (Daniel?) and screams at them. Or goes,, "postal".

I think you have that backwards. It's so that no one shows up at their door and gets shot by their COO with a .357 Magnum.



This is the Whois entry. That would be a good starting place.

That or find were the servers for wikipeida are located and serve that
service center.

Tech Organization:Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Tech Street1:200 2nd Avenue S. #358
Tech Street2:
inTech Street3:
Tech City:Saint Petersburg
Tech State/Province:Florida
Tech Postal Code:33701-4313
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.17272310101
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.17172580207
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:dns-admin@wikimedia.org

or some tradecraft....

send the summons to this address

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 919227
Orlando, FL 32891-9227
United States

inside an envelope
marked "payment enclosed"

just a thought.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:06pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:41pm) *
Any new non-profit or private company can hire a registered owner for 200-300 bucks. Not a big deal, nor a scam.

Exactly - it's all strictly legal and above-board. That's the whole point!

If your registered agent is in, say, Delaware (quite common - I believe Wikia's is there), and you're in California or Florida or DC, that really just adds an extra layer of liability protection to your organization, because any legal decision against you is going to have to go through a lot of extra inter-state bureaucracy before it results in any kind of forfeiture of assets. And you have to assume that the registered agent will be located in whatever state provides the most friendly venue for a liability case


Well, if the Registered agents don't forward calls, that would be the end result. But if you wanted to found an LLC, or S-Corporation, all you'd have to do is pay some money to a registered agent, and they'd fill out the papers (they have the certification for this) and you are a "company". Try it! It makes you feel important. Then go edit about our new compand and brag to JeHochman. smile.gif

Having a registered agent is 100% normal, except for that when Wikipedia got anywhere above Sanger and Wales per employees, it was time to outsource the legal to something realistic. The fact that they still have a registered agent is kind of cheesy. Or bad planning. Or (as you guess) subterfuge.

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:08pm) *

That or find were the servers for wikipeida are located and serve that
service center.

Tech Organization:Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Tech Street1:200 2nd Avenue S. #358
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Saint Petersburg
Tech State/Province:Florida
Tech Postal Code:33701-4313
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.17272310101
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.17172580207
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:dns-admin@wikimedia.org


Again - that's their mailing address - the post box. But anyways, the post box should work all the same.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Perhaps Greg Kohs is right — you have to get them on tax evasion if you're going to get their attention at all. That's how they got Al Capone.

QUOTE
But anyways, the post box should work all the same.

Work for what? I started this discussion by talking about a Florida attorney who sent a process server to serve the Foundation. This attorney complained to me that the address was a UPS drop box. You cannot serve a drop box. (This case had nothing to do with me. This attorney contacted me because he thought I may have tried to serve the Foundation at some point in the the recent past, and he wanted to know how I pulled it off. I've never tried to serve the Foundation, and I couldn't help him other than to find that extra address (Jimbo's registered agent address), and refer him to pictures of the staff on the Wikimedia Foundation website, and give him what was Jimbo's residence, which itself may have been out of date.)

Don't you watch gangster movies? The process server has to get real clever to get close enough to serve the bad guy without getting shot by bodyguards, and he also has his buddy close by to witness that the bad guy is actually getting served.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:41pm) *
Mike Godwin's Email: mneumonic@well.com

Not quite. He has long used mnemonic@well.com (note the spelling), and he has a http://www.well.com/~mnemonic/ there, but I recently exchanged E-Mail with him at mgodwin@wikimedia.org.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:12pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:06pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:41pm) *
Any new non-profit or private company can hire a registered owner for 200-300 bucks. Not a big deal, nor a scam.

Exactly - it's all strictly legal and above-board. That's the whole point!

If your registered agent is in, say, Delaware (quite common - I believe Wikia's is there), and you're in California or Florida or DC, that really just adds an extra layer of liability protection to your organization, because any legal decision against you is going to have to go through a lot of extra inter-state bureaucracy before it results in any kind of forfeiture of assets. And you have to assume that the registered agent will be located in whatever state provides the most friendly venue for a liability case


Well, if the Registered agents don't forward calls, that would be the end result. But if you wanted to found an LLC, or S-Corporation, all you'd have to do is pay some money to a registered agent, and they'd fill out the papers (they have the certification for this) and you are a "company". Try it! It makes you feel important. Then go edit about our new compand and brag to JeHochman. smile.gif

Having a registered agent is 100% normal, except for that when Wikipedia got anywhere above Sanger and Wales per employees, it was time to outsource the legal to something realistic. The fact that they still have a registered agent is kind of cheesy. Or bad planning. Or (as you guess) subterfuge.

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:08pm) *

That or find were the servers for wikipeida are located and serve that
service center.

Tech Organization:Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Tech Street1:200 2nd Avenue S. #358
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Saint Petersburg
Tech State/Province:Florida
Tech Postal Code:33701-4313
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.17272310101
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.17172580207
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:dns-admin@wikimedia.org


Again - that's their mailing address - the post box. But anyways, the post box should work all the same.



I'm sure you know this already but I have added for the edivication of some
with out this knowledge.



QUOTE
48.081 Service on corporation.--

1. Process against any private corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served:
1. On the president or vice president, or other head of the corporation;
2. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), on the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager;
3. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (cool.gif, on any director; or
4. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), paragraph (cool.gif, or paragraph ©, on any officer or business agent residing in the state.
2. If a foreign corporation has none of the foregoing officers or agents in this state, service may be made on any agent transacting business for it in this state.
3. As an alternative to all of the foregoing, process may be served on the agent designated by the corporation under s. 48.091. However, if service cannot be made on a registered agent because of failure to comply with s. 48.091, service of process shall be permitted on any employee at the corporation's place of business.
4. This section does not apply to service of process on insurance companies.
5. When a corporation engages in substantial and not isolated activities within this state, or has a business office within the state and is actually engaged in the transaction of business therefrom, service upon any officer or business agent while on corporate business within this state may personally be made, pursuant to this section, and it is not necessary in such case that the action, suit, or proceeding against the corporation shall have arisen out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the business being transacted within the state.
History. - s. 8, Nov. 21, 1829; s. 2, Feb. 11, 1834; s. 1, ch. 3590, 1885; RS 1019; GS 1406; s. 1, ch. 6908, 1915; s. 1, ch. 7752, 1918; RGS 2604; CGL 4251; s. 1, ch. 57-97; ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 59-46; s. 4, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 67-399; s. 6, ch. 79-396; s. 7, ch. 83-216; s. 1, ch. 84-2.
Note. - Former s. 47.17.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:21pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:12pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:06pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:41pm) *
Any new non-profit or private company can hire a registered owner for 200-300 bucks. Not a big deal, nor a scam.

Exactly - it's all strictly legal and above-board. That's the whole point!

If your registered agent is in, say, Delaware (quite common - I believe Wikia's is there), and you're in California or Florida or DC, that really just adds an extra layer of liability protection to your organization, because any legal decision against you is going to have to go through a lot of extra inter-state bureaucracy before it results in any kind of forfeiture of assets. And you have to assume that the registered agent will be located in whatever state provides the most friendly venue for a liability case


Well, if the Registered agents don't forward calls, that would be the end result. But if you wanted to found an LLC, or S-Corporation, all you'd have to do is pay some money to a registered agent, and they'd fill out the papers (they have the certification for this) and you are a "company". Try it! It makes you feel important. Then go edit about our new compand and brag to JeHochman. smile.gif

Having a registered agent is 100% normal, except for that when Wikipedia got anywhere above Sanger and Wales per employees, it was time to outsource the legal to something realistic. The fact that they still have a registered agent is kind of cheesy. Or bad planning. Or (as you guess) subterfuge.

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:08pm) *

That or find were the servers for wikipeida are located and serve that
service center.

Tech Organization:Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Tech Street1:200 2nd Avenue S. #358
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Saint Petersburg
Tech State/Province:Florida
Tech Postal Code:33701-4313
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.17272310101
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.17172580207
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:dns-admin@wikimedia.org


Again - that's their mailing address - the post box. But anyways, the post box should work all the same.



I'm sure you know this already but I have added for the edivication of some
with out this knowledge.



QUOTE
48.081 Service on corporation.--

1. Process against any private corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served:
1. On the president or vice president, or other head of the corporation;
2. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), on the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager;
3. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (cool.gif, on any director; or
4. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), paragraph (cool.gif, or paragraph ©, on any officer or business agent residing in the state.
2. If a foreign corporation has none of the foregoing officers or agents in this state, service may be made on any agent transacting business for it in this state.
3. As an alternative to all of the foregoing, process may be served on the agent designated by the corporation under s. 48.091. However, if service cannot be made on a registered agent because of failure to comply with s. 48.091, service of process shall be permitted on any employee at the corporation's place of business.
4. This section does not apply to service of process on insurance companies.
5. When a corporation engages in substantial and not isolated activities within this state, or has a business office within the state and is actually engaged in the transaction of business therefrom, service upon any officer or business agent while on corporate business within this state may personally be made, pursuant to this section, and it is not necessary in such case that the action, suit, or proceeding against the corporation shall have arisen out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the business being transacted within the state.
History. - s. 8, Nov. 21, 1829; s. 2, Feb. 11, 1834; s. 1, ch. 3590, 1885; RS 1019; GS 1406; s. 1, ch. 6908, 1915; s. 1, ch. 7752, 1918; RGS 2604; CGL 4251; s. 1, ch. 57-97; ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 59-46; s. 4, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 67-399; s. 6, ch. 79-396; s. 7, ch. 83-216; s. 1, ch. 84-2.
Note. - Former s. 47.17.



Some more tradecarft....

Send the Wikifoundation a check for a 5 dollars to this address...
QUOTE
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 919227
Orlando, FL 32891-9227
United States


When the check clears, you will have an address stamped on
back of the check with the name of the wiki treasurer and
thats the target for a good, lawful summons. per Florida statues...

subsection

" 2. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), on the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager;"

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:35pm) *
When the check clears, you will have an address stamped on back of the check with the name of the wiki treasurer and thats the target for a good, lawful summons. per Florida statues...

Clever! But there's just one problem - once you're gotten the check back from the bank, it's too late to stop it and get the money back...

Think of all the damage they could do with that five bucks!

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:16pm) *

(This case had nothing to do with me. This attorney contacted me because he thought I may have tried to serve the Foundation at some point in the the recent past, and he wanted to know how I pulled it off. I've never tried to serve the Foundation, and I couldn't help him other than to find that extra address (Jimbo's registered agent address), and refer him to pictures of the staff on the Wikimedia Foundation website, and give him what was Jimbo's residence, which itself may have been out of date.)


Why can't you serve a postal address? Just send it with a signature by USPS, or signature FEDEX, and then you have proof they got it. Done. What about the 2nd Avenue North Address? I recall someone salying their po box was around their office, so that sounds ok.

Posted by: Joseph100

Also some helpful information about wiki...see 990 irs form...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/ce/WMF_2006_Form_990.pdf

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:35pm) *
When the check clears, you will have an address stamped on back of the check with the name of the wiki treasurer and thats the target for a good, lawful summons. per Florida statues...


You could also take a stolen credit card, and try to charge 5 cents to the Foundation, to see if the card works.

I hear that's a popular form of "donation" per Danny Wool.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:42pm) *

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:35pm) *
When the check clears, you will have an address stamped on back of the check with the name of the wiki treasurer and thats the target for a good, lawful summons. per Florida statues...

Clever! But there's just one problem - once you're gotten the check back from the bank, it's too late to stop it and get the money back...

Think of all the damage they could do with that five bucks!



True...but is cheaper then hiring a gumshoe or process server..yes.

Any rate, if you do sue, it recoverable costs, if you should win the suit.


Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:44pm) *

Also some helpful information about wiki...see 990 irs form...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/ce/WMF_2006_Form_990.pdf

The only useful info in there is Florence Devouard's address (and what is AE? overseas? Where is France in there), and the address of their paid acountant, who apparently has either an office or a drop box down the street on 2nd avenue from their other two addresses.


Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:43pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:16pm) *

(This case had nothing to do with me. This attorney contacted me because he thought I may have tried to serve the Foundation at some point in the the recent past, and he wanted to know how I pulled it off. I've never tried to serve the Foundation, and I couldn't help him other than to find that extra address (Jimbo's registered agent address), and refer him to pictures of the staff on the Wikimedia Foundation website, and give him what was Jimbo's residence, which itself may have been out of date.)


Why can't you serve a postal address? Just send it with a signature by USPS, or signature FEDEX, and then you have proof they got it. Done. What about the 2nd Avenue North Address? I recall someone salying their po box was around their office, so that sounds ok.




http://www.acefla.com/chapter_48_process_and_service_florida_process_server.htm

QUOTE

"(b) If the address provided for the registered agent, officer, director, or principal place of business is a residence or private mailbox, service on the corporation may be made by serving the registered agent, officer or director in accordance with s. 48.031."


S. 48.031 saids this...


QUOTE
48.031 Service of process generally; service of witness subpoenas.--

(1)(a) Service of original process is made by delivering a copy of it to the person to be served with a copy of the complaint, petition, or other initial pleading or paper or by leaving the copies at his or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents. Minors who are or have been married shall be served as provided in this section.

(b) Employers, when contacted by an individual authorized to make service of process, shall permit the authorized individual to make service on employees in a private area designated by the employer.

(2)(a) Substitute service may be made on the spouse of the person to be served at any place in the county, if the cause of action is not an adversary proceeding between the spouse and the person to be served, if the spouse requests such service, and if the spouse and person to be served are residing together in the same dwelling.

(b) Substitute service may be made on an individual doing business as a sole proprietorship at his or her place of business, during regular business hours, by serving the person in charge of the business at the time of service if two or more attempts to serve the owner have been made at the place of business.

(3)(a) The service of process of witness subpoenas, whether in criminal cases or civil actions, shall be made as provided in subsection (1). However, service of a third degree felony may be made by United States mail directed to the witness at the last known address, and the service must be mailed at least 7 days prior to the date of the witness's required appearance. Failure of a witness to appear in response to a subpoena served by United States mail that is not certified may not be grounds for finding the witness in contempt of court.

(b) A criminal witness subpoena may be posted by a person authorized to serve process at the witness's residence if three attempts to serve the subpoena, made at different times of the day or night on different dates, have failed. The subpoena must be posted at least 5 days prior to the date of the witness's required appearance.

(4)(a) Service of a criminal witness subpoena upon a law enforcement officer or upon any federal, state, or municipal employee called to testify in an official capacity in a criminal case may be made as provided in subsection (1) or by delivery to a designated supervisory or administrative employee at the witness's place of employment if the agency head or highest ranking official at the witness's place of employment has designated such employee to accept such service. However, no such designated employee is required to accept service:

1. For a witness who is no longer employed by the agency at that place of employment;

2. If the witness is not scheduled to work prior to the date the witness is required to appear; or

3. If the appearance date is less than 5 days from the date of service.

The agency head or highest ranking official at the witness's place of employment may determine the days of the week and the hours that service may be made at the witness's place of employment.

(b) Service may also be made in accordance with subsection (3) provided that the person who requests the issuance of the criminal witness subpoena shall be responsible for mailing the subpoena in accordance with that subsection and for making the proper return of service to the court.

(5) A person serving process shall place, on the copy served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process.

(6) If the only address for a person to be served, which is discoverable through public records, is a private mailbox, substitute service may be made by leaving a copy of the process with the person in charge of the private mailbox, but only if the process server determines that the person to be served maintains a mailbox at that location.

History.--s. 5, Nov. 23, 1828; RS 1015; GS 1402; RGS 2599; CGL 4246; s. 6, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 4, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 75-34; s. 3, ch. 79-396; s. 3, ch. 82-118; s. 1, ch. 84-339; s. 7, ch. 85-80; s. 2, ch. 87-405; s. 6, ch. 93-208; s. 269, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 95-172; s. 1, ch. 98-410; s. 1, ch. 2004-273.
Note.--Former s. 47.13.


It would appear the simple answer is a summons can be lawfully served, by registered and certified mail to the right person in the corporation in question.

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 10:50pm) *

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:44pm) *

Also some helpful information about wiki...see 990 irs form...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/ce/WMF_2006_Form_990.pdf

The only useful info in there is Florence Devouard's address (and what is AE? overseas? Where is France in there), and the address of their paid acountant, who apparently has either an office or a drop box down the street on 2nd avenue from their other two addresses.


That's definitely her address in France...You could probably serve Kat Walsh and it would be binding on the foundation....

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:43pm) *

Why can't you serve a postal address? Just send it with a signature by USPS, or signature FEDEX, and then you have proof they got it. Done. What about the 2nd Avenue North Address? I recall someone salying their po box was around their office, so that sounds ok.

I feel like a teaching assistant in Real World 101.

What if they pick up their mail at the UPS drop box only once every 12 months? What if the go-fer who picks it up is instructed not to accept anything that requires a signature? How long should you wait before deciding on Plan B, which is to send it to Mr. Godwin? At least if Mr. Godwin starts playing games (which he probably wouldn't do), you're already in the Big League of Fun and Games, instead of sitting around waiting, month after month, for a Return Receipt that will never arrive.

Does the drop box require a picture ID when signing a return receipt, or can the go-fer just sign it, "Thanks idiots — Yours truly, Jayjg"?

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 10:50pm) *

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:44pm) *

Also some helpful information about wiki...see 990 irs form...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/ce/WMF_2006_Form_990.pdf

The only useful info in there is Florence Devouard's address (and what is AE? overseas? Where is France in there), and the address of their paid acountant, who apparently has either an office or a drop box down the street on 2nd avenue from their other two addresses.


That's definitely her address in France...You could probably serve Kat Walsh and it would be binding on the foundation....


see statue 48.081 Service on corporation, Section (2)

QUOTE
"(2) If a foreign corporation has none of the foregoing officers or agents in this state, service may be made on any agent transacting business for it in this state."


In this case the lowly person that cashes the checks for wiki see my other posting regarding the 5 dollar check is qualified to receive lawful service, as an acting agent for the lovely Florenace Devouard.... Also, if she should "visit" the "states" and talk. All the process serve has to do
is to roll in in a ball and toss it to her on stage or dump in her lap for lawful service.



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:00pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:43pm) *

Why can't you serve a postal address? Just send it with a signature by USPS, or signature FEDEX, and then you have proof they got it. Done. What about the 2nd Avenue North Address? I recall someone salying their po box was around their office, so that sounds ok.

I feel like a teaching assistant in Real World 101.

What if they pick up their mail at the UPS drop box only once every 12 months? What if the go-fer who picks it up is instructed not to accept anything that requires a signature? How long should you wait before deciding on Plan B, which is to send it to Mr. Godwin? At least if Mr. Godwin starts playing games (which he probably wouldn't do), you're already in the Big League of Fun and Games, instead of sitting around waiting, month after month, for a Return Receipt that will never arrive.

Does the drop box require a picture ID when signing a return receipt, or can the go-fer just sign it, "Thanks idiots — Yours truly, Jayjg"?



Some more tradecarft....

Send the Wikifoundation a check for a 5 dollars to this address...
QUOTE
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 919227
Orlando, FL 32891-9227
United States


When the check clears, you will have an address stamped on
back of the check with the name of the wiki treasurer and
thats the target for a good, lawful summons. per Florida statues...

subsection

" 2. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), on the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager;"

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:08pm) *

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 10:50pm) *

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:44pm) *

Also some helpful information about wiki...see 990 irs form...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/ce/WMF_2006_Form_990.pdf

The only useful info in there is Florence Devouard's address (and what is AE? overseas? Where is France in there), and the address of their paid acountant, who apparently has either an office or a drop box down the street on 2nd avenue from their other two addresses.


That's definitely her address in France...You could probably serve Kat Walsh and it would be binding on the foundation....


see statue 48.081 Service on corporation, Section (2)

QUOTE
"(2) If a foreign corporation has none of the foregoing officers or agents in this state, service may be made on any agent transacting business for it in this state."


In this case the lowly person that cashes the checks for wiki see my other posting regarding the 5 dollar check is qualified to receive lawful service, as an acting agent for the lovely Florenace Devouard.... Also, if she should "visit" the "states" and talk. All the process serve has to do
is to roll in in a ball and toss it to her on stage or dump in her lap for lawful service.



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:00pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:43pm) *

Why can't you serve a postal address? Just send it with a signature by USPS, or signature FEDEX, and then you have proof they got it. Done. What about the 2nd Avenue North Address? I recall someone salying their po box was around their office, so that sounds ok.

I feel like a teaching assistant in Real World 101.

What if they pick up their mail at the UPS drop box only once every 12 months? What if the go-fer who picks it up is instructed not to accept anything that requires a signature? How long should you wait before deciding on Plan B, which is to send it to Mr. Godwin? At least if Mr. Godwin starts playing games (which he probably wouldn't do), you're already in the Big League of Fun and Games, instead of sitting around waiting, month after month, for a Return Receipt that will never arrive.

Does the drop box require a picture ID when signing a return receipt, or can the go-fer just sign it, "Thanks idiots — Yours truly, Jayjg"?



Some more tradecarft....

Send the Wikifoundation a check for a 5 dollars to this address...
QUOTE
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 919227
Orlando, FL 32891-9227
United States


When the check clears, you will have an address stamped on
back of the check with the name of the wiki treasurer and
thats the target for a good, lawful summons. per Florida statues...

subsection

" 2. In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), on the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager;"


or you can ask (though certified mail) the "so called check " be signed for with the summons inside.

Posted by: Moulton

I could see filing papers to cease and desist publishing false and defamatory content, etc.

But I can't see filing a suit to recover damages. WMF doesn't have enough money in the bank to run their operation for another year.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:11pm) *

I could see filing papers to cease and desist publishing false and defamatory content, etc.

But I can't see filing a suit to recover damages. WMF doesn't have enough money in the bank to run their operation for another year.


YOU are wrong, they have assets worth millions.... the Wikipedia.org domain and trademarks as well as computer equipment servers etc.

Thats what you get your judgment from, from the force sale thereof.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:08pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:52pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:03pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 13th December 2007, 1:47pm) *

Whoever reads my OTRS will probably be afraid to verify to me that it was received. Does anyone have an address where Mike Godwin would get a registered letter?


I don't have that, but according to Florida Division of Corporations the registered agent for the Foundation is:

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S PINE ISLAND RD
PLANTATION FL 33324 US

You have to be kidding. That's almost as good as a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands. I had an attorney from Florida contact me several months ago. He was frustrated because he was trying to serve process on Wikimedia Foundation. He used one address he found, and that didn't work. I gave him another address for the Foundation that I found, and I don't know if that worked. I also gave him an address for Jimbo's residence, and pointed out that Jimbo was on the Board, but he's always traveling and it might be hard to find him, even if that residence address was still accurate.

I had to convince this attorney that as far as I know, there actually is a little office somewhere that's used by Cary Bass and Brion Vibber and (at the time) Carolyn Doran.

I think I'll ask Cade Metz (who interviewed me about SlimVirgin on November 28) for Godwin's telephone, and then call Godwin and ask him directly for 1) a fax number and 2) a street address where he personally is available to sign for registered mail.

About OTRS, I still haven't heard anything from them. How does that thing work? Since I've never seen it work, my impression is that at best, there's a list of emails, and volunteers get to cherry pick the ones they want to handle. The ones that don't get picked end up falling off the edge of the earth. Is that how it works?


USPS certified return receipt requested to the registered agent is sufficient for service http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/10C69DF6FF15185085256B29004BF823/$FILE/301CIVIL.pdf?OpenElement of the pdf document. If they won't sign for it that will be sufficient cause for a trial court to grant substitute service (usually ordinary mail and posting at the courthouse.) If they then default, good. Yeah, its a pretty mickey mouse way of conducting business.


The whole purpose of having a registered agent is to accept legal process on behalf of a corporation. That's exactly what they're there to do, and they're supposed to be there during normal business hours.

And I can tell you that the current address is new. I think it used to be 200 2nd Avenue S. #358, which seems to be a PO Box. They may have changed it precisely because that Florida Attorney Daniel was talking about got them in trouble for not having a legitimate Registered Agent. Or maybe they changed it because they're moving.

By the way, I heard Godwin is currently in San Francisco. Is the new office already set up there, or is he just http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbo_wales/2111271473/?

UPDATE: the registered agent http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2005/1219/H0284557.Tif. Was that before or after your run-in with that attorney, Daniel?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:14pm) *

By the way, I heard Godwin is currently in San Francisco. Is the new office already set up there, or is he just helping Jimbo load servers on a truck for Wikia?

Or cruising Broadway....

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:14pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:11pm) *
I could see filing papers to cease and desist publishing false and defamatory content, etc.

But I can't see filing a suit to recover damages. WMF doesn't have enough money in the bank to run their operation for another year.
YOU are wrong, they have assets worth millions.... the Wikipedia.org domain and trademarks as well as computer equipment servers etc.

That's what you get your judgment from, from the force sale thereof.

Getting their domain name or trademark is like Verizon getting MCI's domain name and trademark. They are a liability, not an asset.

And any computer gear would be worn out or obsolete by the time any suit comes to fruition.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:14pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:08pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:52pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 1:03pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 13th December 2007, 1:47pm) *

Whoever reads my OTRS will probably be afraid to verify to me that it was received. Does anyone have an address where Mike Godwin would get a registered letter?


I don't have that, but according to Florida Division of Corporations the registered agent for the Foundation is:

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S PINE ISLAND RD
PLANTATION FL 33324 US

You have to be kidding. That's almost as good as a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands. I had an attorney from Florida contact me several months ago. He was frustrated because he was trying to serve process on Wikimedia Foundation. He used one address he found, and that didn't work. I gave him another address for the Foundation that I found, and I don't know if that worked. I also gave him an address for Jimbo's residence, and pointed out that Jimbo was on the Board, but he's always traveling and it might be hard to find him, even if that residence address was still accurate.

I had to convince this attorney that as far as I know, there actually is a little office somewhere that's used by Cary Bass and Brion Vibber and (at the time) Carolyn Doran.

I think I'll ask Cade Metz (who interviewed me about SlimVirgin on November 28) for Godwin's telephone, and then call Godwin and ask him directly for 1) a fax number and 2) a street address where he personally is available to sign for registered mail.

About OTRS, I still haven't heard anything from them. How does that thing work? Since I've never seen it work, my impression is that at best, there's a list of emails, and volunteers get to cherry pick the ones they want to handle. The ones that don't get picked end up falling off the edge of the earth. Is that how it works?


USPS certified return receipt requested to the registered agent is sufficient for service http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/10C69DF6FF15185085256B29004BF823/$FILE/301CIVIL.pdf?OpenElement of the pdf document. If they won't sign for it that will be sufficient cause for a trial court to grant substitute service (usually ordinary mail and posting at the courthouse.) If they then default, good. Yeah, its a pretty mickey mouse way of conducting business.


The whole purpose of having a registered agent is to accept legal process on behalf of a corporation. That's exactly what they're there to do, and they're supposed to be there during normal business hours.

And I can tell you that the current address is new. I think it used to be 200 2nd Avenue S. #358, which seems to be a PO Box. They may have changed it precisely because that Florida Attorney Daniel was talking about got them in trouble for not having a legitimate Registered Agent. Or maybe they changed it because they're moving.

By the way, I heard Godwin is currently in San Francisco. Is the new office already set up there, or is he just helping Jimbo load servers on a truck for Wikia?


Per statue these are the people who would be qualified to receive lawful service on behalf of the wiki foundation.


# Florence Nibart-Devouard, Chair (term until June 2008)
# Jimmy Wales, Chairman Emeritus (term until December 2007)
# Jan-Bart de Vreede, Vice-chair (term until December 2007)
# Erik Möller, Executive Secretary (term until July 2009)
# Kat Walsh (term until July 2009)
# Frieda Brioschi (term until July 2009)
# Michael Davis
* Michael Davis (treasurer)



or any of these chuckle heads...

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Current_staff


QUOTE
1) Process against any private corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served:

(a) On the president or vice president, or other head of the corporation;

(b) In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), on the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager;

© In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), on any director; or

(d) In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), paragraph (b), or paragraph ©, on any officer or business agent residing in the state.

(2) If a foreign corporation has none of the foregoing officers or agents in this state, service may be made on any agent transacting business for it in this state.

(3)(a) As an alternative to all of the foregoing, process may be served on the agent designated by the corporation under s. 48.091. However, if service cannot be made on a registered agent because of failure to comply with s. 48.091, service of process shall be permitted on any employee at the corporation's principal place of business or on any employee of the registered agent.

(b) If the address provided for the registered agent, officer, director, or principal place of business is a residence or private mailbox, service on the corporation may be made by serving the registered agent, officer or director in accordance with s. 48.031.

(4) This section does not apply to service of process on insurance companies.

(5) When a corporation engages in substantial and not isolated activities within this state, or has a business office within the state and is actually engaged in the transaction of business therefrom, service upon any officer or business agent while on corporate business within this state may personally be made, pursuant to this section, and it is not necessary in such case that the action, suit, or proceeding against the corporation shall have arisen out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the business being transacted within the state.


Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:14pm) *

UPDATE: the registered agent http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2005/1219/H0284557.Tif. Was that before or after your run-in with that attorney, Daniel?

I heard from that attorney on July 27, 2007.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:12pm) *

Having a registered agent is 100% normal


Not only is it normal, it's a legal requirement. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0607/SEC0501.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0607-%3ESection%200501#0607.0501:

QUOTE

(1) Each corporation shall have and continuously maintain in this state: (cool.gif A registered agent, who may be either: 1. An individual who resides in this state whose business office is identical with such registered office; 2. Another corporation or not-for-profit corporation as defined in chapter 617, authorized to transact business or conduct its affairs in this state, having a business office identical with the registered office; or 3. A foreign corporation or not-for-profit foreign corporation authorized pursuant to this chapter or chapter 617 to transact business or conduct its affairs in this state, having a business office identical with the registered office.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:22pm) *

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:14pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:11pm) *
I could see filing papers to cease and desist publishing false and defamatory content, etc.

But I can't see filing a suit to recover damages. WMF doesn't have enough money in the bank to run their operation for another year.
YOU are wrong, they have assets worth millions.... the Wikipedia.org domain and trademarks as well as computer equipment servers etc.

That's what you get your judgment from, from the force sale thereof.

Getting their domain name or trademark is like Verizon getting MCI's domain name and trademark. They are a liability, not an asset.

And any computer gear would be worn out or obsolete by the time any suit comes to fruition.


If you want money, sue Bill Gates... the point is to get enough to pay for the cost of your action
against wikifoundation, and to disconnect it from the internet.

Btw, the wiki domain name is hardly a "liability" considering its worth a great deal of money, if it should be auctioned off.


Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 10:24pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:14pm) *

UPDATE: the registered agent http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2005/1219/H0284557.Tif. Was that before or after your run-in with that attorney, Daniel?

I heard from that attorney on July 27, 2007.


Searching the address "1200 S PINE ISLAND RD" on Scroogle, yeah, it looks to be the location of DHL Express.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:27pm) *

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:12pm) *

Having a registered agent is 100% normal


Not only is it normal, it's a legal requirement. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0607/SEC0501.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0607-%3ESection%200501#0607.0501:

QUOTE

(1) Each corporation shall have and continuously maintain in this state: (cool.gif A registered agent, who may be either: 1. An individual who resides in this state whose business office is identical with such registered office; 2. Another corporation or not-for-profit corporation as defined in chapter 617, authorized to transact business or conduct its affairs in this state, having a business office identical with the registered office; or 3. A foreign corporation or not-for-profit foreign corporation authorized pursuant to this chapter or chapter 617 to transact business or conduct its affairs in this state, having a business office identical with the registered office.



Your exactly right. They must have a registered agent, to conduct its affairs in the state of Florida.
And thats where your summons goes... The lowly receptionist there is qualified to receive said lawful service, in behave of Jimmy Wales and Florance per statues.

Posted by: Moulton

Lawsuits are soul-sucking undertakings. It's not worth the money.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:35pm) *

Lawsuits are soul-sucking undertakings. It's not worth the money.


It "aint for the money" its for destroying wikipedia and warning others that
it's necessary to behave and respect the rule of law regarding misinformation
and Defamation.

Posted by: Moulton

The Rule of Law isn't worth the stele that Hammurabi wrote it on.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:39pm) *

The Rule of Law isn't worth the stele that Hammurabi wrote it on.


Then it's ok to go to Florida and get right with Jimmy the Juice man with a shinny chrome plated
nine millimeter justice dispenser???

With out law, there would be blood on the streets, see Somilaland and other exotic locals for
proof of that.

Posted by: Moulton

Do what you think is best, Joseph.

If you want to put your faith in the Rule of Law, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions?

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:47pm) *

Do what you think is best, Joseph.

If you want to put your faith in the Rule of Law, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions?


Whats your religious convictions, the rule of Darwin or a Nietzschen paradise?

Posted by: Moulton

Science and applied math.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:05pm) *

Science and applied math.

John Locke

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 17th December 2007, 12:05am) *

Science and applied math.


Well, folks, if there's one place where money doesn't matter and where everybody sues everybody else , it's pop music;

Which is why I think that we should all be helping http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14681, since (if what I believe is true is true) money is no object here, but revenge is everything....

Posted by: Moulton

John Locke?

Was he also a proponent of Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology, too?

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:09pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 17th December 2007, 12:05am) *

Science and applied math.


Well, folks, if there's one place where money doesn't matter and where everybody sues everybody else , it's pop music;

Which is why I think that we should all be helping http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14681, since (if what I believe is true is true) money is no object here, but revenge is everything....


AGREED

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:09pm) *

John Locke?

Was he also a proponent of Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology, too?

"Second Treatise of Government"

Posted by: Rootology

In regards to suing individual editors, is it any coincidence that Checkuser expires in 30 days?

Gee, I wonder how long a supoena would take to clear?

And actually, "outing" the proper street address of the WMF office would be a valuable service in case someone wanted to file suit. There is no right to privacy of physical locations in business, nor the expectation of the same.

This should be a new top priority project.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 16th December 2007, 6:09pm) *
Well, folks, if there's one place where money doesn't matter and where everybody sues everybody else , it's pop music.

See http://ultra.musenet.org:8020/media/RIAA.Folk.Anthem.html.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Rootology @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:16pm) *

In regards to suing individual editors, is it any coincidence that Checkuser expires in 30 days?

Gee, I wonder how long a supoena would take to clear?

And actually, "outing" the proper street address of the WMF office would be a valuable service in case someone wanted to file suit. There is no right to privacy of physical locations in business, nor the expectation of the same.

This should be a new top priority project.


Willful destruction of evidence is a crime and Jimbo and company could be charged with
contempt if unable to produce evidence required in a lawful motion of discovery.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:26pm) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:16pm) *

In regards to suing individual editors, is it any coincidence that Checkuser expires in 30 days?

Gee, I wonder how long a supoena would take to clear?

And actually, "outing" the proper street address of the WMF office would be a valuable service in case someone wanted to file suit. There is no right to privacy of physical locations in business, nor the expectation of the same.

This should be a new top priority project.


Willful destruction of evidence is a crime and Jimbo and company could be charged with
contempt if unable to produce evidence required in a lawful motion of discovery.


Exactly one of the reasons (hypothetically!) that public revelation of the street address is important.

Note we've already found the Wikia address here:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12363&pid=46682&mode=threaded&show=&st=&

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

The WMF has virtually no money and no assets.; albeit Jimmy has offered to "donate" money if there is, indeed, something missing, which I am pretty sure is not the case.

I feel terrible for people that have the kind of troubles that their COO has and I do pray that she gets some serious help while incarcerated and soon thereafter.

The liability that I see at Wikipedia is in the area of "outing" the officers and real people that are claiming so much power and influence there, in fact, at their own peril.

NewYorkBrad is a case in point. If he is a real live attorney, I suspect he does not want to be involved in anything that could and would effect his licence to practice law in New York or anywhere.

The "good samaritan" while all fine and dandy in theory can be without a job. We all take a pretty strong oath and the circumstances that I have seen there in my own case were fairly scary.

I never wanted in and I never will. Everything becomes a reality show as we have seen with the research being done here. No secrets and no way out. Hi Angela! You ok with that?




Posted by: Rootology

Wait, I thought *ALL* Foundation officers had to be 'outed' by United States and Florida law. Are they not? And that all Arbiters on en had to be known internally?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Rootology @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:29pm) *

In regards to suing individual editors, is it any coincidence that Checkuser expires in 30 days?
82&mode=threaded&show=&st=&]http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...aded&show=&st=&[/url]


If checkuser expires, then they re in contravention of French law that requires them (as a so-called ISP) to keep one year's worth of records to qualify to meet French Law on Everyday Security (LSQ) which was rushed through parliament on 15 November 2001 with virtually no discussion and approved almost unanimously, extended to a year the minimum period ISPs must keep a record of their customers’ Internet activity and e-mail messages.

Nevertheless, this cannot be anymore considered as good news since we don’t know what are exactly how the “traffic data”, the “identification data”, and the “communication data” are defined. These data should not reveal the content of communication, be it e-mail content or the content of the visited web site. The penalty for ISPs who don’t comply whit these provisions are high : one year jail and 75,000 Euros fine.(link discussing http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=77)


Posted by: Moulton

Beef. It's what's for dinner.

That address in San Mateo belongs to the http://www.porterhousesanmateo.com/.

What is it with Jimbo and restaurants that serve cuts of beef?

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 3:47pm) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:29pm) *

In regards to suing individual editors, is it any coincidence that Checkuser expires in 30 days?
82&mode=threaded&show=&st=&]http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...aded&show=&st=&[/url]


If checkuser expires, then they re in contravention of French law that requires them (as a so-called ISP) to keep one year's worth of records to qualify to meet French Law on Everyday Security (LSQ) which was rushed through parliament on 15 November 2001 with virtually no discussion and approved almost unanimously, extended to a year the minimum period ISPs must keep a record of their customers’ Internet activity and e-mail messages.

Nevertheless, this cannot be anymore considered as good news since we don’t know what are exactly how the “traffic data”, the “identification data”, and the “communication data” are defined. These data should not reveal the content of communication, be it e-mail content or the content of the visited web site. The penalty for ISPs who don’t comply whit these provisions are high : one year jail and 75,000 Euros fine.(link discussing http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=77)



Checkuser most certainly does expire after either 30 or 31 days, and always has. It's the worst-kept secret out there. Does this French law apply to the WMF?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Rootology @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:48pm) *

Checkuser most certainly does expire after either 30 or 31 days, and always has. It's the worst-kept secret out there. Does this French law apply to the WMF?


Guh - uh - yeah. That was only half my post.


YES.

Can you provide evidence - tangible evidence - that it only lasts 30 days?
Please do.



French law applies to Wikipedia and Wikimedia in the US. The fact that they have servers in France makes it easier to enforce, but French law would apply in any event. [/b] I've told you guys a billion times this, but you haven't paid much mind.... mellow.gif

In the recent French case, where Wikipedia won, they won mostly because the plantiffs screwed up and only communicated by email, and didn't allow time for response. But nonetheless.
Wikimedia claimed in this case that they could provide this per statutes of the law (which requires one year of data retention - which is not true.).

How do we know it is not true? Anyone know specifically with a link?

Here is the court decision they won with, http://www.foruminternet.org/specialistes/veille-juridique/jurisprudence/IMG/pdf/tgi-par20071029.pdf

Page 6, para 1: mentions this law (law of June 21 2004, article 6.1.8), where the judicial decision asserts that Wikimedia can produce the IP addresses of anyone that edits Wikipedia for one year after they do. Wikipedia reassured the court of this, and it is in the judgement. I don't think this is correct. Again - can someone tell me if Wikimedia keeps checkuser accessability for all logins (not just IPs) for one year? If not, they fibbed. This is important - or will be.


Page four, para 1, tells how they lost the case, because the aggrieved parties sent an email to the Foundation, not a registered letter, which is the legally recognized means of communication in France - they don't accept faxes either for legal documents. There is mention of how difficult it is to reach the staff members, when the President doesn't work in the office, and the legal counsel doesn't work in the Foundation office either - but they didnt' seem to do more than mention it - the main point was that the guys who held the case made an error, and therefore lost the case.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:47pm) *

Beef. It's what's for dinner.

That address in San Mateo belongs to the http://www.porterhousesanmateo.com/.

What is it with Jimbo and restaurants that serve cuts of beef?


I dunno - you ask him.
FORUM Image
Me, Im afraid he'll bite.

Posted by: Amarkov

Checkuser data is explicitly only stored http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Checkuser_policy#CheckUser_status, which would seem to preclude the time being a full year. However, it seems odd that checkuser data would expire over the exact same timespan as http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Cookies, and checkusers may very well be pushing misleading information to help them function better.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:21pm) *

Checkuser data is explicitly only stored http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Checkuser_policy#CheckUser_status, which would seem to preclude the time being a full year. However, it seems odd that checkuser data would expire over the exact same timespan as http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Cookies, and checkusers may very well be pushing misleading information to help them function better.


No, it's perfectly plausible. The Checkuser retention is a simple flag, and to be honest, I've never understood why they don't save it longer. Unless Wikipedia is using a different/proprietary version of Checkuser, which would be a tremendous no-no and people would flip out over, it's a simple setting to change this duration in the stock Mediawiki version. But I have it on good authority that its either 30 or 31 days.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 16th December 2007, 4:06pm) *

If your registered agent is in, say, Delaware (quite common - I believe Wikia's is there), and you're in California or Florida or DC, that really just adds an extra layer of liability protection to your organization, because any legal decision against you is going to have to go through a lot of extra inter-state bureaucracy before it results in any kind of forfeiture of assets. And you have to assume that the registered agent will be located in whatever state provides the most friendly venue for a liability case.

So many companies are headquartered in Delaware for two main reasons -- friendly tax-accounting procedures and business-friendly legal system.

Indeed, in Delaware at the old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motiva_Enterprises, a technician (Jeffrey Davis) working on top of a dilapidated chemical storage tank was pretty much eaten alive by sulfuric acid when the tank ruptured, and the company only had to http://www.caprep.com/0905038.htm, chicken feed for a company that posted $24 billion in revenue in 2004. Damages of one-fifteen-hundredth of annual sales, for dissolving a man with acid. That's why companies headquarter in Delaware.

Greg

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 16th December 2007, 8:06pm) *
Damages of one-fifteen-hundredth of annual sales, for dissolving a man with acid. That's why companies headquarter in Delaware.

Indeed... The sad thing is, when Wikipedia finally does that to the entire Internet, they probably won't have to even cough up a dime.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 16th December 2007, 11:47pm) *

Beef. It's what's for dinner.

That address in San Mateo belongs to the http://www.porterhousesanmateo.com/.

What is it with Jimbo and restaurants that serve cuts of beef?


It's the address of something called "Third Avenue Center". Probably has a bunch of different places in it. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=60+EAST+3RD+AVENUE,+san+mateo&sll=39.721861,-104.986746&sspn=0.007823,0.020084&ie=UTF8&ll=37.567831,-122.323923&spn=0.008062,0.027122&z=16&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.563776,-122.324894&cbp=2,145.6157792699073,,1,2.045962799019564.

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 17th December 2007, 12:07am) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:48pm) *

Checkuser most certainly does expire after either 30 or 31 days, and always has. It's the worst-kept secret out there. Does this French law apply to the WMF?


Page 6, para 1: mentions this law (law of June 21 2004, article 6.1.8), where the judicial decision asserts that Wikimedia can produce the IP addresses of anyone that edits Wikipedia for one year after they do. Wikipedia reassured the court of this, and it is in the judgement. I don't think this is correct. Again - can someone tell me if Wikimedia keeps checkuser accessability for all logins (not just IPs) for one year? If not, they fibbed. This is important - or will be.



It's perfectly possible that both are true - that checkuser only lasts 30 or 31 days but the raw server logs are kept for one year.

Of course, that means they lie in their http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy, which says that server logs are "normally discarded after about two weeks".

Posted by: Moulton

The second floor looks like professional office space above the street level shops.

Probably office space there for half a dozen desks isn't all that much more expensive than St. Pete.


QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:36pm) *
It's perfectly possible that both are true - that checkuser only lasts 30 or 31 days but the raw server logs are kept for one year.

Of course, that means they lie in their http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy, which says that server logs are "normally discarded after about two weeks".

Scroll down to the http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20071018/. The private dumps include "Data for blocks of IP addresses, ranges, and users."

Posted by: Cynick

You could always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC (New York), and have a nice friendly chat.

Posted by: Amarkov

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=178658239&oldid=178649313

Ryulong has started a discussion on this. It's not clear how it's going to turn out, but at least someone's questioning it...

Posted by: Somey

Good! And of all people, User:Thatcher131 comes up with the single best on-wiki summary of the situation yet (boldface mine):

QUOTE(Thatcher131 @ 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
I simply do not understand the purpose of restoring the history of the article. Keeping it as a redirect to Public Information Research is a rational decision, even if some disagree, and was the decision at Wikipedia:DRV#9_December_2007. However what is the purpose of restoring all the article history? That perpetuates the problematic material that was the subject of the June AfD and DRV that resulted in the merge in the first place. GFDL? Redirects don't need a complicated history for GFDL purposes. Joshua also cites Previous breaks many links to by people linking to difs of this article in the archive and makes it hard to find. Well, shit, every deletion breaks a link somewhere, let's never delete anything! If someone has a link to Daniel Brandt and we have chosen to delete it (for whatever reason) then the link should be broken. This latest restoration is completely unexplicable to me.

Bravo, Thatcher! Though I suspect it isn't so inexplicable once everyone understands the psychology of the person who did it.

Posted by: Amarkov

Okay, so "it's not clear what will happen" turns out to mean "everyone so far has agreed that the history shouldn't be there". I suspect some, at least, have seen the threat to make this forum indexed...

Posted by: Moulton

The Spaghetti Ballad

When a noodle meets a noodle,
Coming through the rye...


Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Mon 17th December 2007, 10:59pm) *

Okay, so "it's not clear what will happen" turns out to mean "everyone so far has agreed that the history shouldn't be there". I suspect some, at least, have seen the threat to make this forum indexed...

The threat was on Friday - it's now a reality. A LOT of people who had done Google searches to find background information on Wikipedians they were in conflict with, only to be somewhat frustrated due to our bot policy, are going to find it much easier in a couple of days, if not already. I expect both page views and new-member registrations to increase significantly. They're not going to realize how significant this is until it's too late, I'm afraid.

Who knows, maybe we'll even get some new VIP's coming in! Those are always fun...

Posted by: Piperdown

wow, don't mess with Somey!

You get today's Butters Goes Professor Chaos Award. Hell hath no fury like a mensch scorned!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butters#Professor_Chaos

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Perhaps when Google gets up to speed, we could offer a http://www.scroogle.org/masters.html for this board. All you have to do is put a Scroogle search form on this site. That way your search terms are private, even from the admins on this board, because the search is sent directly to Scroogle. You can even tell it to use SSL if you like.

Of course, some will complain that Scroogle is run by me, and assume that I'm snooping. Not very likely — I've been running Scroogle http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article3055825.ece and I'm busy enough just keeping my five servers running. I have never looked at the search terms except when chasing down bots and abusers that have to be blocked, so that the servers stay available for warm-blooded searchers.

Assuming that Google does a decent job indexing this entire WR board, I think the Google search is better than the Invision PB built-in search. There's no reason why both can't be offered.

I expect it will take about 10 days for Google to get up to speed on WR.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 12:04am) *
Who knows, maybe we'll even get some new VIP's coming in! Those are always fun...

Especially if they come bearing an olive branch and a proposal to negotiate an honorable treaty of reconciliation and peace.

Posted by: Amarkov

I think Google will get a full index considerably sooner than 10 days. The older stuff might take a while, but they've already begun to show results from the editors subforums.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Mon 17th December 2007, 11:12pm) *
wow, don't mess with Somey! ...

Heh heh... Still, everyone should understand that this isn't something I personally wanted to do. That's in addition to the fact that it wasn't solely my decision... I was actualy one of the holdouts.

The problem here is that crawlers are indexing this material right now, as we type - and once indexed, it's going to take a while for those entries to disappear, though they probably will eventually. If they act now (and take advtage of this limited-time offer!), maybe we can all avoid some lasting damage from this situation. But somehow I think they're going to dicker around over it for way too long, and the damage will be done, and it could take months for Google to clear that stuff out. And they'll have JoshuaZ to thank for it, as far as I'm concerned.

At one point I considered e-mailing ol' Joshy directly, but that would have been useless. And asking them politely to reverse the actions of what may now be their most abusive administrator (not to mention the nerdiest) is like yelling at a brick wall. What's the point of asking them nicely? They don't understand "nice" - they understand the veneer of civility, but for them, civility is just another weapon used to get people blocked.

Anyway, this isn't our last ace in the hole - we still have a few others... It was unfortunate that we were driven to using this one, though, since it was probably the easiest one to implement! sad.gif

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 17th December 2007, 11:59pm) *
But somehow I think they're going to dicker around over it for way too long, and the damage will be done...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Krimpet&page=Daniel+Brandt

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 5:59am) *

...ace in the hole...


uh-oh, no you did-int!! you just made mediacrity-mantanmoreland supersekret paranoid again.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

I have never figured out why we censor names in the first place. They have never done that for the users that they abuse.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: The Joy

Thanks to Krimpet and Ryulong!

"Thanks to... Ryulong?" I think I saw a pig fly!


Posted by: Moulton

Does Josh have a HOLE in his head?

What astonishes me is that Josh is a math major and math tutor, so he clearly knows what a function is.

And he knows about self-reference, so he knows about recursion, and hence about chaos theory.

And yet he is enamored of the wonderfulness of http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/error.html as the function of choice when designing a feedback control system.

How could he have been so blind as to reprise Hammurabi's Original Logic Error (WP:HOLE).

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th December 2007, 12:02am) *
I have never figured out why we censor names in the first place. They have never done that for the users that they abuse.

Because if we do as evil does, then we become the evil ourselves?

Don't get me wrong, of course... The name redactions were mostly for self-identified-female editors who had publicly expressed a desire not to be named, or people who had made specific (and non-threatening) requests. There are still a fair number of names, but nearly all of them are people who had already been identified elsewhere and presumably didn't want to bother going to the trouble of getting their WP username disconnected from their real one, if that's even possible in some of these cases.

Anyway, now we have to determine if there's going to be a wheel-war over this... If not, then I think we should probably hide the Editors forum again. I know some people see that as a form of censorship in itself, but I don't personally.

In the meantime, I'll go ahead and take down the top-row banner thingy...

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:12am) *

Don't get me wrong, of course... The name redactions were mostly for self-identified-female editors who had publicly expressed a desire not to be named, or people who had made specific (and non-threatening) requests.


but wait, JzG said that all that SlimVirgin/SweetBlueWater/Sunsplash/SlimV/Candi/Sarah stuff was just lieslieslies from CrazyEvil Dan B and Wacky Wikipedian Personally Attacked User:PatrickByrne.

so why the fuss over redaction? i guess JzG just doesn't know what the gerard he is talking about. i'm crushed, disillusioned, that someone so sure of themselves, in such a high position of virtual authority, could be so wrong.

oh, my wikivirginity has gone and will never blossom again. the horror.

Posted by: east.718

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 18th December 2007, 1:07am) *
Thanks to Krimpet and Ryulong!

"Thanks to... Ryulong?" I think I saw a pig fly!

Actually, all this started from a private discussion which me and another low-profile admin who won't be named set in motion. Ryulong just happened to be the only person sober enough to type something on the administrators' noticeboard.

Posted by: Moulton

Resignation by political suicide?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(east.718 @ Tue 18th December 2007, 12:28am) *
Actually, all this started from a private discussion which me and another low-profile admin who won't be named set in motion. Ryulong just happened to be the only person sober enough to type something on the administrators' noticeboard.

Drinking on a Monday night? huh.gif That reminds me, I never did get the laundry out of the dryer...

Anyway, thanks for doing that! So - what are the chances of a wheel war erupting over this? I don't see ol' Joshy as having much backup among the other admins, at least over something Brandt-related... We know Slimmy, JzG, and the rest of the Cabal won't help him, probably not Dave Gerard or Snowie either, and CharlotteWebb isn't an admin. Most of the admins who might consider getting involved at this point (besides Jimbo himself, I suppose) probably wouldn't have the required intimidation factor. Who's left?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 18th December 2007, 12:18am) *
so why the fuss over redaction? i guess JzG just doesn't know what the gerard he is talking about. i'm crushed, disillusioned, that someone so sure of themselves, in such a high position of virtual authority, could be so wrong.

I gotta be honest here... I really don't think people like JzG or MONGO or even SlimVirgin actually read Wikipedia Review at all, not in any substantive sense of the word - I think they come here, search on their own usernames, and ignore everything else that isn't about them personally, which comprises about 90 percent of the site (though in Slimmy's case, maybe more like 70 percent). This would be perfectly in keeping with the kind of narcissistic behavior they demonstrate on WP itself, though of course I should hasten to point out that I'm not a professional therapist or anything like that.

Even if they aren't narcissists though, can you really blame them? It's a fairly popular, active forum... All 600 members are human, not spambots, and only about half are lurkers. Compared to a typical web-based forum that isn't all about Britney Spears or the Great Linux vs. Windows Debate, that's quite a large number - and the issues being discussed here are often fairly heady, right? Plus they've got plenty of other fish to fry on WP, and WikiEN-L, ad nauseam.

That, to me, is why people like JzG make ridiculous statements like the board is "dominated" by someone like Looch, who hasn't posted anything of significance here in months. JzG is familiar with Looch, knows who Looch is, and Looch posts mostly about JzG, so that's what JzG sees when he drops by - he ignores the rest, but because he's also completely bonkers, he apparently just assumes that everything else here must be about him too. And when we point out that he's lying about us most of the time, it's not just that he is lying, it's that he doesn't even know what the truth actually is.

I'm venting, though... I should be sleeping right about now, not venting!

Posted by: BobbyBombastic

QUOTE(east.718 @ Tue 18th December 2007, 1:28am) *

Actually, all this started from a private discussion which me and another low-profile admin who won't be named set in motion. Ryulong just happened to be the only person sober enough to type something on the administrators' noticeboard.

wonder how often that happens at Britannica.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 12:01am) *

Heh heh... Still, everyone should understand that this isn't something I personally wanted to do. That's in addition to the fact that it wasn't solely my decision... I was actualy one of the holdouts.

The problem here is that crawlers are indexing this material right now, as we type - and once indexed, it's going to take a while for those entries to disappear, though they probably will eventually. If they act now (and take advtage of this limited-time offer!), maybe we can all avoid some lasting damage from this situation. But somehow I think they're going to dicker around over it for way too long, and the damage will be done, and it could take months for Google to clear that stuff out. And they'll have JoshuaZ to thank for it, as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, take down the banner. But let Google keep going. You were one of the holdouts, and a group of us who were holding your feet to the fire on this did it on the basis that the Editors forum should have been available to the bots from Day One anyhow.

My position now is that there's a good chance that Google will do a decent job of indexing this entire Board, old stuff and new. At that point we can add a Scroogle search box that will be clickable as either a site-specific-plus-keywords, or an entire-web search. It could even be a secure connection to Scroogle. There is zero overhead for this Board to do this, because it happens on my servers, not the server that this Board uses. (In fact, if folks prefer Scroogle over the built-in search, it will reduce overhead for this Board.) It would be a useful addition to the Board search we have now, and will make this Board stickier and more interesting. There are some advantages to the built-in search, and we should keep it there. But I suspect that most people will gravitate toward the Google results from Scroogle. Part of the reason is that they have a feel already for how to use Google and don't want to figure out the search system for this Board.

Besides, we're already addicted to the extra traffic we get from Google, aren't we? Don't lock out out the bots from Editors now that we are halfway there. Let's see what sort of a job Google does with all these extra pages.

You can see what a Scroogle search of this Board will look like by going to http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html and using search terms site:wikipediareview.com (where search terms are what you're looking for). Keep in mind that Google hasn't indexed most of the Editors forum yet, and is probably two or three days behind on the other forums as well.


Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 17th December 2007, 11:04pm) *

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Mon 17th December 2007, 10:59pm) *

Okay, so "it's not clear what will happen" turns out to mean "everyone so far has agreed that the history shouldn't be there". I suspect some, at least, have seen the threat to make this forum indexed...

The threat was on Friday - it's now a reality. A LOT of people who had done Google searches to find background information on Wikipedians they were in conflict with, only to be somewhat frustrated due to our bot policy, are going to find it much easier in a couple of days, if not already. I expect both page views and new-member registrations to increase significantly. They're not going to realize how significant this is until it's too late, I'm afraid.

Who knows, maybe we'll even get some new VIP's coming in! Those are always fun...



Please do not back down on this issue.

Keep. Per Daniel Brandt. smile.gif


Posted by: thekohser

Scroogle is blocked by some corporate firewalls as a "Proxy Avoidance" problem. I presume that the Scroogle plug-in on Wikipedia Review could trigger that sort of filter? That wouldn't be a good thing, and I wouldn't want some users of WR to find the entire site blocked because of that type of filter. Is that even possible? I'm not a complete propeller-head, so I certainly don't have the answers.

Greg

Posted by: Moulton

I'm confused about parts of this debate and where people stand on the issues.

Daniel Brandt has his HiveMind page, where he compiles information on the identity of otherwise pseudonymous WP admins.

Erik is evidently on record with the view that the "sum of all human knowledge" should be freely publishable by anyone, including WP publishing a biography of Daniel Brandt (against his will).

WR is vacillating on the issue of making public discussions of various high rollers on WP, with or without facilitating discovery of their real world identity and personal history.

WP has a mixed policy on publishing concordances of IPs with editors and their pseudonyms.

WR has an inchoate policy regarding the issue of whether IP addresses are private.

Could we have a public conversation to sift through these policy issues and see if we can sort out what gets through the sifter?

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:02am) *

I have never figured out why we censor names in the first place. They have never done that for the users that they abuse.

Per Moulton, they've not yet advanced to the stage where they understand that other people count, too. To Wikipedians, their colleagues are real people; everyone else is abstract.

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:28pm) *

Could we have a public conversation to sift through these policy issues and see if we can sort out what gets through the sifter?

Where I stand:

Wikipedia adminstrators should be treated the way they treat others, individual by individual. Administrators who don't violate others' privacy and don't defame third parties, and don't support others who do, deserve the same consideration in return. Those who do, don't.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:56am) *
Where I stand:

Wikipedia administrators should be treated the way they treat others, individual by individual. Administrators who don't violate others' privacy and don't defame third parties, and don't support others who do, deserve the same consideration in return. Those who do, don't.

The problem I see with that approach is that you end up replicating the worst offenders with equal and opposite mistreatment. The fact that you only did it to that one worst offender is going to be lost on random observers who don't realize you are acting as a perfect mirror to each individual onlooker.

It occurs to me that a better strategy would be to respond to offensive conduct with the minimum effective response to prevent, minimize, neutralize, ameliorate, or remediate the damage caused by the original offense.

Or, to paraphrase Mohandas Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and pretty soon the whole world is blind."

Posted by: Rootology

More Joshua comedy:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087663.html

QUOTE

Quoting David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:

>
>> Is that a "law" of Godwin's variety... as a discussion of Wikipedia
>> gets longer, the probability of a link to WR being introduced
>> approaches one?
>
>
> The introduction of a mention of it. More importantly, it's as
> accurate an indicator that the thread is dead and can be ignored.
>
>
> - d.

I would hope not. I mean Wikipedia Review is present and is something
that needs
to be dealt with
both because they harass and out our users and because
sometimes, very rarely have good points or mention things that aren't getting
wide notice on Wikipedia that arguably should (again very rarely). It might
however be an indication when WR shows up due to a passing mention of WR as
this one.



Dealt with? Uh oh. He went to Yale. I wonder if he's a Connecticut native like myself? Because we do have mafia back home, and dealt with could take on whole new connotations. Are they gonna find Somey buried in a corn field, or will Daniel end up as a talking fish head?

Posted by: Moulton

It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:30am) *

It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.


I'm sure he along with half the admins have already seen your request.

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 18th December 2007, 10:35am) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:30am) *

It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.


I'm sure he along with half the admins have already seen your request.


Question: Would you trust your bio to a punk like this???
FORUM Image


Question: What influence would a fellow like this would have in the academic community?
see the following open email for enlightenment.

http://www.thewif.org.uk/version2/nlett/0/transcript.html
QUOTE

Email Reply of the 29th October 2006 from Dr. David Hill, Chief Executive of WIF to Professor Carl Edwin Lindgren FWIF


Email sent

Dear Carl,



Yes it certainly seems so. In our case we even went to the top and although initially he seemed to be going to do something about matters, he eventually went very quite ( so quite that we never hear another thing from him), and even though he told the WIF that they only needed to deal with him. So much for the executive director of Wikipedia therefore if the top person cannot be relied upon to bring a bit of stability to the situation. It is a bit like anarchy I believe the way that they go about things. In many ways very undemocratic as the louder you shout and put misinformation about, you WIN at Wikipedia according to our experience. A ganging up situation where if you challenge them they get worse and do not act like responsible human beings !



If ever I have chance to meet up with their founder or that silent executive director I shall certainly confront them.



Thanks for your feedback and I hope that you are well.



Sincerely,



David



Ps. We even sent the Exec. Dir. a copy of our registration documents as a Swiss charity to prove who we were. But this did nothing and it appeared in the end that our face just did not fit - possibly because we questioned their wisdom.




In the end would you trust or deal with the collection of
sycophants, loons, tin hats, Jimbo Juice cultes, pathalogical lairs, Punk kids, power tripping niliist and all the other collection of pornographers and other miscritants and basement dwelling freaks.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 18th December 2007, 1:02am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 5:59am) *

...ace in the hole...


uh-oh, no you did-int!! you just made mediacrity-mantanmoreland supersekret paranoid again.


http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/12/17/funny-pictures-pwn3d1/

Posted by: AB

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 10:00pm) *
Does the drop box require a picture ID when signing a return receipt, or can the go-fer just sign it, "Thanks idiots — Yours truly, Jayjg"?


That could easily depend on the delivery person, or whomever
is there overseeing the signing. 'Does this person even speak
English?' may be a valid question, if immigrants are hired.

Posted by: AB

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 4:30pm) *
It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.


I'm guessing they would like discussion in the 'Editors' section of
the website to be restricted to noting when people violate their
policy, i.e. no ethical commentary, and even then for there to be
no criticism of people who have high rank.

(In one sense, they are right - it is better to talk to people than
about people. On the other hand, for many of the people here,
talking to these people is not an option, leaving talking about
them as the only option besides accepting being gagged.
Furthermore, the inverse relationship between how tolerant they
are of criticism and how highly the target of criticism ranks in their
hierarchy makes them hypocrites.)

Furthermore, I'm guessing they'd like further discussion in the
'Articles' section of the website, detailing how articles deviate from
their policy, suggesting sources and improvements.

(A few problems here - may of the members here are banned.
Isn't the whole point of banning people that you don't want their
help anymore? Well, not necessarily. Even if you are banned,
they might accuse you of 'blackmailing' them if you state you
have no interest in contributing to articles just because they
banned you. And then some of us are on strike anyway....)

Note they do not want ethical commentary. They want to be
judged by their own standards. (Errr?)

I'm not sure if ethical debates over their policy offend them more
or less than commentary on the high ranking members of the WP
hierarchy. It probably depends on who you ask. On the one hand,
they might consider criticism of their policy to be an attack against
*all of WP*. On the other hand, their own policy does technically
say no personal attacks, not no group attacks, so it should
theoretically be more acceptable to them than criticism of individual
editors. In reality, some of them may be more upset about criticism
of WP as a whole than criticism of individual editors, since they
believe the project 'transcends' all individuals.

Disclaimer: Individual members of WP have individual opinions.
I am sure my summary does not reflect all of them.

Posted by: AB

QUOTE('Daniel Brandt's Scroogle website')
There are other proxies that can protect your privacy on the web.
Almost all are general-purpose proxies that cloak all of your web
activity behind an IP address that is not easily traced to your
service provider. One is Anonymizer.com. A possible problem with
this one is that the founder, Lance Cottrell, has connections with
the FBI and the Voice of America. It also costs money for a
reasonable level of service. Another is Tor, which is much more
secure. But it is also slow, because Tor is a complicated system
that needs networks of volunteers to run server software. Juvenile
surfers from video pirates to rogue Wikipedia editors tend to clog
free services such as Tor, which slows them down even more.


Actually, Tor's speed has improved. Part of the problem was
that the lower bandwidth nodes were being overutilised while
the higher bandwidth nodes were being underutilised.

Anyway, in Tor 0.1.2.17, major load-balancing changes were
made. It was estimated that this would increase Tor's capacity
by a factor of four once the networked rebalanced. This was
months ago, so most people should've upgraded by now.

See http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2007/msg00005.html.


QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:23pm) *
Scroogle is blocked by some corporate firewalls as a "Proxy Avoidance" problem. I presume that the Scroogle plug-in on Wikipedia Review could trigger that sort of filter? That wouldn't be a good thing, and I wouldn't want some users of WR to find the entire site blocked because of that type of filter. Is that even possible? I'm not a complete propeller-head, so I certainly don't have the answers.

Greg


You should really read the Tor design paper draft,
http://www.torproject.org/svn/trunk/doc/design-paper/blocking.html.