Wikipedia Podcasts, User:Privatemusings turns Radio host Options

[Kato]

Privatemusings has started a Radio Show! The latest show features Danny Wool and Durova.

Here's more about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Maybe one of us should get on the show. Greg? I know you fancy yourself as a bit of a shock jock!

[Kato]

Danny Wool is really interesting in the third recording when Privatemusings lets him speak. Towards the end Durova makes no sense whatsover.

[guy]

Towards the end Durova makes no sense whatsover.

Hmmm ....

[thekohser]

Privatemusings has started a Radio Show! The latest show features Danny Wool and Durova.

Here's more about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Maybe one of us should get on the show. Greg? I know you fancy yourself as a bit of a shock jock!

I guess it would be an excuse to dig out my old microphone headset and try Skype again after my first (bad) experience with it a couple of years ago. I'll happily consider it, if invited, but I'm not going to actively stump for my inclusion.

Greg

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Privatemusings has started a Radio Show! The latest show features Danny Wool and Durova.

Here's more about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Maybe one of us should get on the show. Greg? I know you fancy yourself as a bit of a shock jock!

at about 13 minutes, Paraphrasing ...

<interviewer> .. So Jimbo's reimbursement ... was that clearly marked was that a donation?

<Durova's computer dings>

<Danny> ... The money can be found in the CRM donation log ... two checks

<Durova's phone rings>

<Danny> ... Whether Jimmy actually got a tax rebate for it, I do not know.

<Durova's phone rings>

<interviewer> ... well one would assume not

<Durova's phone rings>

<Danny> ... actually, my assumptions are very different ... But I have no knowledge one way or another


How, exactly, was this reimbursement documented by the Foundation? Is it listed in the Foundations books as a donation? I wish Sue would answer this.

Here's the thing - if its falsely listed as a donation (rather than a reimbursement) and Jimbo deducted it on his income taxes as a donation, then it's a very serious thing. And the foundation would have participated in the fraud by creating a fake paper trail.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Sat 8th March 2008, 3:29pm

[thekohser]

1. The show would benefit from a 50% reduction in Privatemusings' talking.

2. The show would benefit from Durova's phone not ringing in the same place as her microphone AT THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT of Danny's allegations.

3. Amazing that Wool hypothesizes that this should be treated by either an IRS audit or an Attorney General audit. Didn't I just say that a few days ago?

[Kato]

And then some kid murmurs an inane comment right at the end, who hasn't said a word throughout the whole show!

What exactly was the question Durova asked Danny towards the end? It sounded like some Wikipedian's Streams of Consciousness ramblings and the words didn't make any sense. Danny sounded a bit dumbstruck and replied that he didn't understand either.

Still, it was worth a listen. Fair play to Privatemusings.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

1. The show would benefit from a 50% reduction in Privatemusings' talking.

2. The show would benefit from Durova's phone not ringing in the same place as her microphone AT THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT of Danny's allegations.

3. Amazing that Wool hypothesizes that this should be treated by either an IRS audit or an Attorney General audit. Didn't I just say that a few days ago?

Hypothetical question here (any tax/criminal lawyers around?);

*What level of crime is making fake deductions on one's personal income tax? (civil/misdemeanor/felony)

*Is there a level of money where the crime rises from civil to criminal, from misdemeanor to felony?

*Is there a level of conspiracy that elevates that type of crime from minor to felony?

*If a non-profit's lawyer conspires to falsely document an individuals payment as a donation, and that documentation (canceled mislabeled checks, donation log) is used to commit tax fraud by the individual, what are the consequences for the non-profit.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Sat 8th March 2008, 4:30pm

[Pumpkin Muffins]

And then some kid murmurs an inane comment right at the end, who hasn't said a word throughout the whole show!

What exactly was the question Durova asked Danny towards the end? It sounded like some Wikipedian's Streams of Consciousness ramblings and the words didn't make any sense. Danny sounded a bit dumbstruck and replied that he didn't understand either.

Still, it was worth a listen. Fair play to Privatemusings.

Jeez, listening to Durova was painful.

I've seen some witty and hilarious posts from her. While at other times there just seems to be monkeys running loose in her head.

[thekohser]

Full credit to Privatemusings for getting this started. My recommendation for him to talk less was meant as completely constructive. Let your guests speak.

And, yeah -- what was the deal with "Zginder" on the platform? He spoke for 20 seconds. Was he an invited guest, or is Privatemusings' Skype session an open forum, and he just happened to show up? That was weird.

Greg

[Pumpkin Muffins]

<Danny> ... he was caught and had to pay it back. (regarding the $7,000 reimbursement)

This really isn't fair. Anyone who's traveled on an expense account knows that some things are covered and others have to be settled. Usually, an employee gets a stack of cash and a company credit card. At the end of each trip a form is filled out noting what was personal and what wasn't, backed up with receipts. The personal expenses are then deducted from ones paycheck. The standard procedure in many companies is that you never spend a dime from your own accounts while on the road. (Well, except when buying jewelry for one's lovely wife and daughters). Giano makes a good point that being denied an expense is no big deal.

So unless Jimbo resisted making a reimbursement, and that $7,000 include something outrageous like jewelry for his wife, then I think Danny is out of line.

Now, listing a reimbursement as a donation is a totally different matter.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Sat 8th March 2008, 5:03pm

[AB]

3. Amazing that Wool hypothesizes that this should be treated by either an IRS audit or an Attorney General audit. Didn't I just say that a few days ago?

If you want to, you can report your suspicions to the IRS.

It says it's completely voluntary, but there are situations
in other countries where you can be considered an
accomplice if you knowingly do nothing to prevent
suspected tax fraud.

Of course, if someone does report this, someone will
probably shout OMG legal threat / harassment! anyway.

Disclaimer: Not specifying whether I think there was any
tax negligence / fraud / whatever committed.


This post has been edited by AB: Sat 8th March 2008, 5:29pm

[Kato]

<Danny> ... he was caught and had to pay it back. (regarding the $7,000 reimbursement)

This really isn't fair. Anyone who's traveled on an expense account knows that some things are covered and others have to be settled. Usually, an employee gets a stack of cash and a company credit card. At the end of each trip a form is filled out noting what was personal and what wasn't, backed up with receipts. The personal expenses are then deducted from ones paycheck. The standard procedure in many companies is that you never spend a dime from your own accounts while on the road. (Well, except when buying jewelry for one's lovely wife and daughters). Giano makes a good point that being denied an expense is no big deal.

WMF is a registered non-profit charity!

[Pumpkin Muffins]

<Danny> ... he was caught and had to pay it back. (regarding the $7,000 reimbursement)

This really isn't fair. Anyone who's traveled on an expense account knows that some things are covered and others have to be settled. Usually, an employee gets a stack of cash and a company credit card. At the end of each trip a form is filled out noting what was personal and what wasn't, backed up with receipts. The personal expenses are then deducted from ones paycheck. The standard procedure in many companies is that you never spend a dime from your own accounts while on the road. (Well, except when buying jewelry for one's lovely wife and daughters). Giano makes a good point that being denied an expense is no big deal.

WMF is a registered non-profit charity!

so? what's the difference? are non-profits not allowed to send someone out on official business and pay for the trip?

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Sat 8th March 2008, 5:19pm

[KamrynMatika]

<Danny> ... he was caught and had to pay it back. (regarding the $7,000 reimbursement)

This really isn't fair. Anyone who's traveled on an expense account knows that some things are covered and others have to be settled. Usually, an employee gets a stack of cash and a company credit card. At the end of each trip a form is filled out noting what was personal and what wasn't, backed up with receipts. The personal expenses are then deducted from ones paycheck. The standard procedure in many companies is that you never spend a dime from your own accounts while on the road. (Well, except when buying jewelry for one's lovely wife and daughters). Giano makes a good point that being denied an expense is no big deal.

So unless Jimbo resisted making a reimbursement, and that $7,000 include something outrageous like jewelry for his wife, then I think Danny is out of line.

Now, listing a reimbursement as a donation is a totally different matter.

Yes, I agree. I know people who work in companies that have a similar setup for people who are travelling. You charge most things to your card whilst you're away, and then settle up when you get home.

I think this entire issue is a big red herring that's only serving to distract from more significant issues.

The issues:

1. Jimmy Wales COI in the Marsden article: as we can see, only one edit - that by JzG - was made as a result of his influence, and that edit was fairly minor. Of course it does raise the question of "how many times has this happened before?" but Jimbo's influence is, if any, very small on the wiki and I think it's unlikely that his attempts to skew articles have had a significant impact. I recall that his comments on the Che Guevera articles months ago were met with extreme resistance from editors and I imagine that usually his attempts to influence articles cause more editing against his POV than for it.

2. The issue of Foundation money being spent - as has been stated by Danny, he did settle his expenses and this is fairly normal behaviour for organisations that have people visiting places for them anyway, so it really is a non-issue. I find Danny's evidence vague to the extreme. He provides no evidence, has made claims he later backs up on ('Well, I don't recall if x was correct exactly, but it was something like that - anyway here's another allegation to distract from it'), doesn't answer many, if any, of the questions that are posed to him and refuses to clarify about whether Jimbo actually did anything illegal.

In response to Kato's point about it being a non-profit charity - so? Even charities send people on trips for official business and pay for it. How else are they going to attract people to work for them if they expect people to pay for their costs when the charity wants them to do official work for them - like it or not, Jimbo pretty much is the public face of Wikipedia and it's in the Foundation's best interests to have him represent them abroad. I hate the guy, but even I think it's a bit stupid to think that people in the higher ranks of charitable organisations work for free and pay for all their expenses.

3. And last but not least, all the amused gossipping about Jimbo's private life which has pretty much nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Jimbo is not a leader on Wikipedia anymore, most people ignore him and he's like the batty grandparent that still think he's in charge of the family that everyone humours just to keep him quiet. Of course, he is a giant douchebag and his behaviour is pretty shitty, but not enough to justify the volume of posts on the topic - especially when threads about much more serious things, for example the article Human Trafficking in Angeles City which is basically a giant collection of original research and synthesis, receive not even 1/50 of the attention.

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: Sat 8th March 2008, 5:24pm

[Kato]

so? what's the difference? are non-profits not allowed to send someone out on official business and pay for the trip?

When you're getting money from schools and kids and anyone else who has been told their money is to help educate "the poor in Africa", you'd don't expect someone to go off with a credit card, lavish it on luxuries and then fumble around over $7000 of reimbursements.

Yes, I agree. I know people who work in companies that have a similar setup for people who are travelling. You charge most things to your card whilst you're away, and then settle up when you get home.

Regular companies yes, you spend freely and enjoy the benefits. But at a non-profit charity, unnecessary lavish spending is heavily frowned upon.

[Milton Roe]

<Danny> ... he was caught and had to pay it back. (regarding the $7,000 reimbursement)

This really isn't fair. Anyone who's traveled on an expense account knows that some things are covered and others have to be settled. Usually, an employee gets a stack of cash and a company credit card. At the end of each trip a form is filled out noting what was personal and what wasn't, backed up with receipts. The personal expenses are then deducted from ones paycheck. The standard procedure in many companies is that you never spend a dime from your own accounts while on the road. (Well, except when buying jewelry for one's lovely wife and daughters). Giano makes a good point that being denied an expense is no big deal.

But are there not limits to certain business expenses? During Pres Jimbo Carter's administration, we heard endlessly about the 3-martini lunches, and I thought they finally decided 2 martinis was okay, if only you could tax waitresses for 8% of their salaries which they were presumed to be making in tips? Did that all go away? On the web, it looks very murky what the law is now.

BUT, there must be limits. If you TRY to deduct a $600 bottle of wine or two at a meal, and your COO rejects it, isn't that the same as trying to rob a bank but getting away with no money? Doesn't the attempt count for anything?? I mean, insofar as "wrongdoing." There are some things that are res ipsa loquitur over-the-top as business expenses, and this has got to be one of them if anything is. Sometimes you can argue that you need the Lear Jet trip to close a deal, but how in the devil are you going to argue that you needed to drink a $600 bottle of wine? If the deal was that important, nobody would be tasting the wine anyway. So you don't even get THAT, even if $600 bottles of wine taste 12 times better than $50 bottles of wine (which they do not, so I am assured; in blinded tests even the experts often cannot tell a fantastically expensive wine from a merely very good one).

-- Milt, Unashamed Drinker of "Two-Buck Chuck" Merlot from Trader Joe's

[Pumpkin Muffins]

so? what's the difference? are non-profits not allowed to send someone out on official business and pay for the trip?

When you're getting money from schools and kids and anyone else who has been told their money is to help educate "the poor in Africa", you'd don't expect someone to go off with a credit card, lavish it on luxuries and then fumble around over $7000 of reimbursements.

The only luxury I've seen so far was a ~$1700 meal, which in extremely rare circumstances might be ok, for example to wine and dine a rich and powerful potential donor used to that treatment. Although judging from anthere's reaction, this wasn't the case and was extremely poor judgement on James' part for trying to get reimbursed. Also, this was after the cc was taken away and not part of the 30,000/7,000.

Jetsetting around the world is expensive, Kato. If the foundation chose to make that expense then you can't blame James for donating his time to execute it.

James is apparently a little loose with the foundations money (based on that dinner and poor judgement in asking for it to be reimbursed). Fine, the consequences are now here, James is an idiot sometimes.

But saying James did something wrong because he had to make a reimbursement, and based on nothing else, isn't fair.

[dogbiscuit]

2. The issue of Foundation money being spent - as has been stated by Danny, he did settle his expenses and this is fairly normal behaviour for organisations that have people visiting places for them anyway, so it really is a non-issue. I find Danny's evidence vague to the extreme. He provides no evidence, has made claims he later backs up on ('Well, I don't recall if x was correct exactly, but it was something like that - anyway here's another allegation to distract from it'), doesn't answer many, if any, of the questions that are posed to him and refuses to clarify about whether Jimbo actually did anything illegal.

Danny was, I thought, suggesting that the appropriate amount to agree was higher than $7,000 - in other words, the implication was that $7000 out of $30,000 might not be a true reflection of what was appropriate. It would be interesting to get that clarified, so the points were:

* what is the nature of the $23,000 that was accepted (in the context of insanely expensive bottles of wine).
* was there a genuine agreement, or was the $23,000 written off based on a failure to agree (did Jimbo bully them into this).
* again, was the expenditure and reimbursement correctly accounted for by the WMF if it was recorded as a donation (which might also suggest that Jimbo did not accept he had any responsibility for the expenditure and therefore made an ex-gratia payment). Put another way, it miught be said that if he accepted liability for some, he was in for the whole $30k, so they came up with the donation to allow the WMF to avoid a complete falling out.
* If it was a reimbursement, did Jimbo make a tax claim? If so, the IRS should be investigating, as I suspect there would be other rich pickings.
* Jimbo has made much of not taking money from WMF, yet he has clearly been able to extract significant money from activities around the WMF. It does not stack up.

[Edited due to Junior School maths error]

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: Sun 9th March 2008, 1:25pm

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Danny was, I thought, suggesting ...

There is where we get into trouble. Now the Foundation needs to clarify a few things because Danny has been somewhat vague.