JoshuaZ looks at Section 230, and gives me an idea... Options

From WikiEN-l:

> "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/...a-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 restore the redirect 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 deleted on December 1, 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.

From WikiEN-l:

> "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/...a-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 restore the redirect 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 deleted on December 1, 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.

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.

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

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.

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.

(IMG:http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wfas4.gif)

"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.

Are you guys following the ridiculous bullshit discussion on the merge-vs-delete of Brandt's article?

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.

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.

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.

The Yale Herald, 2003-11-14:

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.

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 Dialogico-Rhetorical Normativity, and remedial charm school training.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I added this comment to the WP:DRV discussion:

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

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.

I award Joshua Z this barnstar (IMG:http://s237.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/DisillusionedLackey/th_whinerbarnstar.jpg)

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.

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!

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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.

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.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

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.

Are you guys following the ridiculous bullshit discussion on the merge-vs-delete of Brandt's article?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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 Letter to the Editor of the Yale Daily News, 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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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).

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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/CTWebAdminA...ntServices.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.

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?

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

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...) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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 Designated Agent address.

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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.

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.

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 Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(i)(2)(a) page 18 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.

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.

This post has been edited by Joseph100: