Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

Template:SFBAProject

New Executive Director

Should Sue Gardner be mentioned here? She's just been made the Foundation's Executive Director; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/Gardner interview. That sounds like a fairly significant position to me, so it should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article. Terraxos (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Carolyn Doran

Discussion of recent news reports is continuing on this page[1]. Please let's keep that discussion centralized there to reduce the need for deletions/blanking for BLP (Biography Of Living Persons) reasons in the future. Risker (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hm. I get why that link was there now.Dookama (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot to do here people.... Just to start: Why does a search for 'Carolyn Doran' end up on the parent page here? And once the user ends up here, why does the article mantion her once and not even note that she has left? More importantly; someone (not me, Because I hate drunk drivers and cannot maintain NPOV (Neutral Point of View) in this regard) needs to link this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/ (Or at least some other article with the same info). Duck and cover folks.. EasyTarget (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Humm, re-reading what I wrote above, it's hasty and not very good really. I understand the reason for the redirect, at this point in time at least. And the Register article is also inappropriate for linking while it remains the sole (unopposed by the people named in it) source.

However.. At present the main article doesn't even make Carolyn's current status vv. the foundation clear. A few sentences in it now will do far more good for Wikipedia's reputation with the public at large than any amount of discussion on her talk page.. EasyTarget (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn is the former COO and has no 'current status' with the Foundation, it is therefore irrelevant to the article. --AlisonW (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, she does indeed have a current status. Her current status is that she is a former employee. My ignorance of US employment law is probably only superseded by my ignorance of what is in a Wikipedia Foundation employment contracts; but this may well mean that there are still some contractual obligations running both ways. For instance are there non-disclosure or non-compete clauses? This could affect how the foundation has to behave in this instance.

Of course, if you believe that this is totally irrelevant and should not be discussed here, then please reconcile that to the fact that her name redirects to the Foundation page. EasyTarget (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be equating black and white here; current .. is .. former?? hardly reasonable. The article on myself doesn't mention that I used to work for Cares, or Harrods, or lots of other organisations for exactly the same reason as here; they do not make a 'notable' (per WP:BLP) fact. --AlisonW (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point about there being out of date information in this article has been addressed by another editor, who has made some updates and added some references. Doran's departure is included. While I do understand you have questions about her employment contract, specific employment contracts with individual employees aren't normally part of an article on any non-profit or other business. The reason her article redirects here is that the only way in which she is notable is by her prior association with the Foundation, and even that is somewhat uncertain at this time. Does this help a bit? Risker (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for chipping in here again, but I actually care about Wikipedia, it's necesscary in a world full of overtly political media giants. But I have no time for lamer aspects of the wiki bureaucracy, especially when trying to engage in a silly form of committee based damage limitation. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop whistling please, this now moving up the journalistic food chain. At some point I guess it might become 'Notable'.

Risker: Apparently there IS a confidentiality agreement with Carolyn (as I would have expected), I expect foundation staff members will be very cautious on how they respond.

EasyTarget (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, EasyTarget, there is a confidentiality agreement. They're pretty standard in all kinds of businesses, and they aren't noteworthy. "Damage limitation" as you call it isn't actually focused on this event, it's more focused on the fact that we are now operating under much more stringent requirements in theBiography of Living Persons policy than we were in the past. The article on Doran has already been deleted and cannot be reinstated unless there is a successful deletion review; the likelihood of success is miniscule as of this writing because there aren't enough reputable sources reporting on this yet. Nobody is blocking their ears and saying "I can't hear you." Right now, there isn't enough information to write a proper article; this could well change in the next 24-48 hours, or it may never change. People went to bat to at least keep the Talk:Carolyn Doran page accessible for fact gathering in the absence of an article; that's hardly trying to keep this all a secret. Risker (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[unindented for clarity]

Thankyou for the clear explanation of the rationale of the steps taken up to now, It can be quite hard to follow what is happening to people who are not well versed the acronyms and policies round here.

However this is only a rationale for the steps taken over the page for Caroline (this is fine, WP:BLP is a very necessary policy, I wish every journalist was bound by one!) these same steps however, happen to stop mention of the very real 'governance' issues involved in her tenure and departure. Without a central (article space) point for this the accusation of damage limitation will linger. Since people know that 'anyone' can edit wikipedia and will therefore wonder why 'someone' has stopped them. EasyTarget (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to express your thoughts on the 'governance' issue on User talk:Jimbo Wales, where several others have expressed their opinion and Jimmy Wales has been responding. Risker (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is that page redirecting here? It makes no sense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume it is because others believe that she is only notable for her previous employer, hence the redirect. Cbrown1023 talk 04:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have recently listed Carolyn Doran at Deletions Review, not because I necessarily believe that she warrants an article on herself, but because a) the continued protection of the deleted page without discussion gives an incredibly bad PR impression and b) the incident itself is certainly notable and should not be brushed off. After a cursory glance I can't exactly tell why this page is under such stringent protection, but I see no reason why consensus can't be reached on the addition several sentences related to this controversy in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That becomes especially important now that the decision has been taken on WP to redirect Carolyn Doran to this page. David in DC (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you how it appears even to me, a long-time Wikipedia fan, to find the Wikimedia Foundation article not only doesn't have one mention of the embarrassing details of the Carolyn Doran episode but is also "protected" so the information can't be added. I see this and remember the countless times other organizations have tried to prevent embarrassing (but notable) information from being added to their Wikipedia entries only to be coldly blocked and made to simply "deal with it". I felt those organizations were treated correctly and the protection of this article is, IMHO, unbelievably hypocritical. Lawyer2b (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself this question: Why is there a Wikipedia article on Darleen Druyun and not on Carolyn Doran? Both held senior positions within their organizations. Both were later found out to have engaged in criminal behavior. It is clear that information censorship is taking place. The hypocrisy is astounding. One is left with the impression that information on Department of Defense scandals should be freely available, but information on Wikimedia scandals should be swept under the rug. It reminds one of the communist regimes during the cold war -- information control. Westwind273 (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here are some sources for this besides the original Register article: Washington Post, Tampa Tribune, Associated Press by Canada East. 75.175.14.34 (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the new material to the article. It's the right thing to do and it's correct in terms of language, length and sourcing. Wholeheartedly endorse. David in DC (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is similar to the Soviet Union saying there was a "minor problem" at Chernobyl. Admit only the bare minimum; restrict information as much as possible. There should be a separate article on Carolyn Doran, or more information provided in this article. Westwind273 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to there being too little information on the affair in this article -- write a paragraph or two and put it in. Dookama (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The solution is not so simple. Adding information about this affair will be removed as being off-topic, since it isn't really about the Wikimedia Foundation, but about how Wikipedia handled the Carolyn Doran article in response to the controversy. However, we all know that you can't recreate the Carolyn Doran article, so we're back at square one. --Fandyllic (talk) 10:57 AM PST 6 Jan 2008

Founder

Jimmy is overwhelmingly and commonly known as wikipedia founder, to claim on the basis of a couple of obscure refs that he is only the co-founder, which is not the case, has no place int he article or the encyclopedia, and appears to be coming of Sanger supporters. That Abercrombie's revert made it sound like my edit was vandalism merely makes the matter worse. Now please can we discuss this rather than having an undiscussed POV pushing edit stand. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The refs are not obscure, they are definitive, because they are from the relevant time. That Wales has since 2004 quite successfully been pushing his alternate history in which he is sole founder cannot change the facts. We describe what he is according to the best available sources, not what he is known as by lazy journalists who simply repeat what he tells them. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are POV pushing then. I would suggest this is not the place and your aspersions towards allegedly lazy journalists (read "they don't agree with me") merely confirms it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are 2 potential refs that he is known as the founder [2] [3] and refs that are certainly neutral and not merely pro-Jimbo articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before. There's not a single source explicitly confirming Jimbo's view of being sole founder. Your second source actually refers to him as co-founder and mentions the other co-founder, and speaking of "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" is merely imprecise, but does not imply sole foundership. We, however, should be precise. The official Wikipedia press releases are definitive. And thus, if you say his being the co-founder "is not the case" it is manifestly you who is POV pushing. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one is saying sole founder, what is unacceptable is co-founder and this is clearly not POV pushing whereas your insistence on taking Sanger's side against what Jimbo states is clearly partial and hence POV. What is wrong with founder when that is what he is known as. I doubt if 1 in 10,000 people in the UK, for example, have ever heard of Sanger but everyone knows Wales as the founder of wikipedia, its common usage and it is thus NPOV. Doubtless we will keep going through this until it gets sorted as when people re-insert co- they are just inflaming a dispute, and for no good reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If he's not a co-founder, he is the sole founder, and that's precisely the impression you want to give in an underhanded way by insisting on "founder". Clearly when journalists speak of founder, they're simply sloppy, because no journalist has ever explicitly took Jimbo's position - even though there has been explicit reporting about the "dispute". As has been said before, the co-foundership is backed up by sources, it's not merely "Sanger's side". Jimbo's position is baseless, not backed by a single source, and thus entirely irrelevant. Therefore supporting it is POV, going against it is not. An encyclopedia isn't parroting inexact "common usage" - it won't say "America" for the United States or "Holland" for the Netherlands, etc. That may be quite true what you say about fewer people having heard of Sanger, but how is that at all relevant? Whether Wales was actually founder or co-founder back in 2001 is the only thing that matters, anything that transpired later cannot possibly have any influence on that. Wales could take any fancy title he likes like God-King etc., but he can't "promote" himself from co-founder to founder after the fact, because that's not a job position but a reference to an immutable historic event. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Describing Jimbo Wales as "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" does not overtly take a position on whether Jimbo was the "sole founder" or a "co-founder." In fact, this actually strikes me as a reasonable way of not having to grapple with the sole-founder/co-founder issue in contexts where is is not essential to do so (as opposed to a construction such as "the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales", which does imply a view on this question). After all, I could be mentioned as "Wikipedia editor Newyorkbrad" without implying that there are no other editors. The issues as to whether Jimbo was "sole founder" or "co-founder" and what Larry Sanger's role was are fair game for discussion on the articles where they are most relevant, but the controversy should not spin off to include every page where Jimbo's name is mentioned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable compromise - if there were a real-world dispute about the matter, with multiple proponents on each side. However, there is no reliable source or notable person who maintains that Wales was sole founder except Wales himself. Thus there is no reason at all to avoid the factual term "co-founder". Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the wider world means we must call him founder, not co-founder or sole founder, we are certainly not calling him the sole founder right now nor am I proposing we do so. Why would calling him the founder mean we were calling him the sole founder or even imply such a fact? It doesn't, it is nice and simple and neutral and doesn't take a side on the Wales-Sanger dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How does it follow we must call him founder? Calling him founder would tend to lead uninformed readers to the default assumption that he is the sole founder, so it is needlessly imprecise. And I don't see how co-founder is not "nice" or "simple" enough. And it is neutral, since there isn't a general dispute about it. If there are two persons in a "dispute" over the result of 2+2, one saying 4 and the other 5, that doesn't mean we can't take a side in the matter, if no reliable source or notable group of people says 5. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said Brad, I have no objections to the dispute being discussed in the bulk of the article in an NPOV way, what I object to is the co- in the opening, nor would I support a sole in the opening. I have no doubts that he is commonly known as the founder of wikipedia, and there are no lack of refs to back this, and this is therefore what deserves to go in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, is he a co-founder, THE founder, or just A founder? I think the distinction is important. Just calling him THE founder of Wikipedia certainly implies a SOLE founder to me. If it doesn't then I agree that it is at least imprecise and should be changed to A founder. --Fandyllic (talk) 1:20 AM PST 23 Dec 2007

SqueakBox, if you don't want to call him sole-founder, because he wasn't the sole founder, isnt' he therefore a co-founder? To answer your question above "Why would calling him the founder mean we were calling him the sole founder or even imply such a fact?" - because using the term "the founder" means it's singular (much like the word "sole"), as opposed to "a founder" which means he founded it with others (much like the prefix "co-"). If you need more info, wikipedia has a pretty good article on the definite article the --Ptanham (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Board Reduction

{{editprotected}}

I realize that this is currently protected, but I'd like to suggest that we go ahead and update the Board membership to note the resignations of Michael Davis and Erik Moller [4]. Dragons flight (talk)

Done. I may be missing it, but I notice the article makes no mention of Danny Wool's previous resignation, before the last board elections. Not sure if we need to, but should probably find a good ref (would foundation-l count?). – Luna Santin (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Board expansion.

{{editprotected}}

11 members maximum: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036560.html -- Jeandré, 2007-12-23t07:56z

This page is no longer protected so you can make the necessary changes yourself. Tra (Talk) 12:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit removed regarding activity on the now-deleted Carolyn Doran article

Posting this information here, as I did on the talk page of User:Fandyllic:

"In answer to your edit summary, it isn't going to last very long because it is self-referential without reliable outside sources being used to support the claim. I am going to remove your edit for that reason. It is also, incidentally, completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Wikipedia editorial decisions are not directed from the Foundation. Risker (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)"

This confirms that the question inherent in the user's edit summary received a response. Risker (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Very dissapointed with Wikipedia's choice of ethics here

Westwind273's example of Boeing executive Darleen Druyun having a page, but the blatant absence of Carolyn Doran is spot on. We can't throw around altruistic claims like "summary of all human knowledge for advancment of society" etc. *and* censor data that might bruise the shiny reputation of WP in the same breath. It just doesn't hold water. Drewson99 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I do understand where you are coming from. Certainly Druyun, whose improper behaviour took advantage of the United States government, one of the largest employers in the US, and involved millions of dollars, is a very serious matter. Compare Doran - tiny employer, no national affiliation, and the entire budget of the WMF is less than a lot of local churches. We wouldn't have an article about a former church secretary who was found to have had convictions after she left the job. Doran has not been found (or even accused) of acting improperly on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation or of having improperly carried out her financial responsibilities while an employee. It isn't a big coverup. Having an article about Doran is simply assigning undue weight to her personal life because the Foundation was her short-term employer. Risker (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this hilarious too, claiming to be the 'sum of all human knowledge' yet being totally biased or censored on some subjects. How about giving kids in third world countries an established Encyclopedia that doesn't have 15 thousand trolls, 30 thousand people with an agenda, and 2 million people who don't know what they are talking about? Stupid people can be very, very determined. Bomblol (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

References screwed up

• "Wikimedia Foundation mailing list message" does not point to Erik Moller election
• another one is syntax-broken.

Please fix. `'Míkka>t 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Neutrality?

The official policy of Wikipedia prohibits promotional articles. As this article is on the non-profit charity, The Wikimedia Foundation, I propose that all members/affiliates/employees and users of this domain be prohibited from editing this article as they could be biased in favour of Wikimedia.

"Promotional article production on behalf of clients

Producing promotional articles for Wikipedia on behalf of clients is strictly prohibited."

Sincerely Speaking, SutjoSutjo-18005 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Wikimedia projects

This page seems to be redundant, and it seems that it should be merged into the "Projects" section of this article. --Wikiacc (°) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I have proposed that part of the article Wikipedia (terminology) also be merged here. Vl'hurg ^talk 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, List of Wikimedia Projects is redundant in the same mode as the above. --Wikiacc (¶) 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

References

I commented out two references that were being used to cite facts that seem completely unrelated to the references themselves. Can someone check up on them? Just search for the <!-- tag and you should find them. I'd like someone else's opinion on this. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Employees section

I've removed the employees section from the article. I can't seem to find any other company or organization's article that goes into the same depth about specific employees. Please do not re-add part or all of the list until there is consensus that having the people listed on the article adds some benefit to the article as a whole. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further, I've just removed an external link linking to a project space page which contains a list of teh employees. Unless we start adding links to lists of employees to every article about an organisation, it violates our NPOV policy to do it here. Hiding T 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree. And even if you are right IAR might apply. It is a helpful link to our readers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Then readers who are actually interested in such minutiae - which aren't a part of an *encyclopaedia* but maybe of a business directory - are welcome to visit the website of the organisation concerned, same as they would with any other company or foundation. --AlisonW (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the website of the organisation concerned. We need to tell them where we are putting the data. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The information is interesting to experienced editors, I think, as well as being somewhat relevant to the history of the foundation. But I'd support something like Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation employees rather than having the information in mainspace. (And both a current employees and history of employees on such a page.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that reading the information was insightful; however, John's correct. It should probably go in the Wikipedia namespace or Meta. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable compromise to me. I can't see any reason we need to raise the information to meriting a link in the external links section though. I think we can reasonable assume people looking for it will be looking elsewhere first, and can't work out why we need it. I also object to the accusation of wiki-lawyering in the edit summary. Hiding T 13:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Meta's better - points to MZMcBride for noting that option. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

economic status

I have removed this for discussion:

"As of 2007, Wikimedia's growth has outpaced its ability to raise funds, and consideration was being given to placing advertisements on Wikimedia projects. However, this has historically drawn staunch opposition from the editing communities of the projects. It has been estimated that such endeavours could potentially raise hundreds of millions of dollars. (See also Wikipedia:Advertisements)."

This looks like pure WP:OR (synthesis). There was a gap between hoped for revenue and actual, but the rest looks like OR. The "outpacing" may seem like it but we have no source cited to say this; the expenses quoted may well include discretionary elements for example. Serious consideration by the WMF to place adverts on its projects as is stated, to cover this stated funding gap, is unsourced. Estimates of benefits would be relevant, if the above were sourced and reliable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be in the article. The 2006-2007 financial audit just released indicates no such thing. It does indicate (by my original research) that the 2005-2006 financial period was dominated by hardware acquisition and the 2006-2007 period dominated by employee acquisition. Makes sense to me. First we had nothing. Then we had to buy computers. Then we needed to hire people who knew what they were doing. Now the people being hired need to earn their pay by raising money. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

that's a lovely summary :-) Anthere (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia:About

This is a profoundly silly link. There is nothing on this page that is not contained on the WMF website. The only possible reasoning for the link is to make the list of employees absolutely unmissably clear. This is not a function we provide for any other organisation; apart from finding it profoundly disturbing, it is utterly redundant. All the information that is given by the Wikipedia:About page is provided in more depth by the Foundation's website. The link -- and moreover the "includes employees" or whatever formulation WAS 4.250 has come up with now -- is redundant, navel-gazing and self-obsessed. I do not plan to revert -- I have already done one partial revert on the matter and do not intend another -- but I would very much appreciate some reasoned discussion. I did bring this up with WAS 4.250 on his talk page, but he accused me of "trolling"...

So, a justification for this link would be appreciated.

Anyone?

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link. We should no be treating this article much differently than that of any other organization. A link to the official site which we have, is all that is needed. Mr.Z-man 01:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally have some straight talk. You found "it profoundly disturbing" so rather than face and evaluate your emotional response you attack me with your insults. It's not worth fighting over. If it upsets you that much, by all means, let's get rid of it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem, WAS. Have you got any actual arguments for keeping the link? I really would be interested to hear them. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 02:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason is the one you already know about: "The only possible reasoning for the link is to make the list of employees absolutely unmissably clear." That's what I want to do and that is what you do not want to do. It upsets you for some reason to do that. I don't know why. I don't care why. I don't care much at all about this issue. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

History of...

The article has a lot of "history of" in it, who was employed and left when, and so on, which is way way beyond the level of detail we'd give to most other comparable articles.

Can we either remove it, or move it to History of the Wikimedia Foundation?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Form 990 mistakes?

Someone was trying to make a point about how the WMF has filed their past two Form 990's, but then an admin deleted it. Anybody here able to comment on whether those forms were actually "incorrect" in their posted state? I could try to do some more research for sources that discuss Form 990 reporting responsibilities. If I find anything, I'll report back here. -- CitationMonger (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The administration of WikiMedia (other than the computer technical side) has been incompetent until just recently when we had enough money to hire people who knew what they were doing (money before went to the top priority - computers and bandwidth). Why should filling out a line item in a government form be any different? Probably filled out by some boyfriend-shooting drunk anyway. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WAS, how is this relevant to the topic? Please reconsider your statement. As for the Form 990, I've see many with mistakes in my accounting years, anyone care to argue how this fact is actually notable? The WR states that they incorrectly marked two different checkboxes one in each year. Hardly a significant fact. If the IRS launches an inquiry or investigation, and this receives independent secondary coverage, then yes, we can include it in the article. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up. Yes, we need a reliable published source to indicate notability before it goes into the article, but discussion trying to decide notability goes on the talk page. I am tired of people thinking they are helping an encyclopedia that aims to cover all knowledge by censoring things. Respond calmly, matter of factly, even with a little humor, and we can avoid sophomoric drama fests. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You said above, "when we had enough money to hire people". Are you yourself a stakeholder in the Wikimedia operation? -- CitationMonger (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Define "stakeholder". WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems evasive, WAS. Let's assume that CitationMonger would define stakeholder as "A person with a legitimate business or governance interest in a given enterprise." Obviously, a common editor or admin at Wikipedia is not a stakeholder in the Wikimedia Foundation, unless they are entitled to some inside consulting or management role per direction of the Board or staff of the WMF. You said "we" regarding hiring of staff. Are you a stakeholder who would have semantic need to say "we", or were you just using "we" in the sense of the "happy, loving community" form of "we"? Simple question. Why evade? -- AnswersGalore (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why evade? I was in the mood for it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By that definition, I am not a "stakeholder". WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But I do have a legitimate governance interest in WikiMedia and WikiPedia by my understanding of the concept of "legitimate", even if I don't by yours as defined above. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the 2004 form and the 2005 form were prepared by certified public accountants &#151; Michael E. Steuer of Accupay Solutions in 2004, and by M. Timothy Farrell of the accounting firm Gregory, Sharer & Stuart in 2005. While Jimmy Wales signed the 2004 form to attest that he examined it, only the 2005 form was signed by an actual boyfriend-shooter. Surely, you're not calling the professionally-licensed CPAs "incompetent", are you? -- CitationMonger (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Define "incompetent". WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Unskilled, lacking normally expected degree of ability." -- AnswersGalore (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Those responsible for the accuracy of the government forms were incompetent. A hired CPA is not responsible for not being provided information. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, in my capacity as a journalist, a little while ago I asked both the CPA and the Wikimedia Foundation about the issue of the accuracy of the Form 990, with regard to Wikia's association. The CPA didn't reply, and the Wikimedia Foundation's boilerplate reply contained little information, basically saying they stand by it as accurate (this was not my question - I had asked essentially regarding the reasoning). I don't know if it's a mistake. It might not be. But neither the CPA nor the Wikipedia Foundation would elaborate. Frankly, I thought I asked them a very softball question. But I can understand why they might not want to discuss the matter at all. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The WMF now has a FAQ which in part at last addresses this issue: "At first glance, it does seem like this question should be answered "yes." However, the IRS provides non-profits with detailed guidelines regarding what it considers a "business relationship." Whether or not there is a business relationship hinges upon the amount of direct compensation (salary) a person receives, as well as the amount of stock they own. In the case of Jimmy, Angela and Michael, none of them received sufficient compensation, nor owned sufficient stock, to qualify as having a business relationship under the IRS guidelines. Therefore, the question is properly answered no. We have reviewed this issue in detail with Wikia and with our audit firm, and we are satisfied that the question is answered accurately." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Blog

{{editprotected}} Please add a link to the newly opened foundation's blog. 16@r (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this something we'd usually do? First example of a corporate blog I could think of was Google's, and sure enough, it's linked. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected now. Anyone can make the requested edit. --- RockMFR 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Liability lawsuit

Would people support adding a line or so about the ongoing liability "Section 230" lawsuit ? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If this has been covered by media, yes. If the only sources are primary (e.g. court documents and press releases), then no. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been several media articles in the last month on the subject, e.g. [5] [6] [7] -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikimedia camera shy or something?

Something WEIRD is going on. On July 4 I uploaded a picture of the Wikimedia headquarters that I just took. Now it looks like not only the picture has disappeared, the upload disappeared from my edit history as well! But I know that picture was there in the article for at least two days before it disappeared. Anyway, I will try again in a couple of days. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The image has been deleted, see the log. SPQRobin (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because "information not published"? That makes no sense. The address is public information! After all, there was a "Stillman Wiki Wall" competition not that long ago and Hoovers publishes the correct address in its entry on the Wikimedia Foundation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Deletion Review. --Random832 (contribs) 06:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have appreciated being asked about this, rather than going to Deletion Review right off the bat. Anyhow, as you probably know, the deletion review debate has been closed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. This is an OFFICE MATTER now? Well, I suppose I will wait a while and see if anyone from the Foundation comments on this issue before attempting to upload the photo again.

Also, I just remembered to point out that the Wikimedia Foundation physical address is also available from the California Secretary of State at the California Business Portal. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask that you don't upload it again. I'm sure that once somebody from the office is available to comment on-wiki, they will. Unfortunately, this may not be until after Wikimania. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:OFFICE says that the office doesn't get to just do whatever they want; there has to be a legitimate reason. If this is not the case maybe that policy should be edited to reflect the reality. --Random832 (contribs) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• For now, it is requested that the photo be not uploaded at this time. If you must wait a few days, the wiki will not break. I am sure, that a justification will be forthcoming. For now, please just understand, that safety is the word of the day. Random and others, thank you for your patience on this and your understanding. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If the reason given by the office (which will be given once Wikimania is up, I am sure) is deemed unsatisfactory by consensus, we can reupload. Coolcaesar, I'm sorry you got thrown into all this, and I understand your confusion. Please don't take it personally - the WMF works in weird and wonderful ways sometimes. ;-) —Giggy 11:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    Consensus can't trump OFFICE, that's the whole point of OFFICE, it's for the staff/board to dictate things to the community when they need to, usually for legal reasons. I'm willing to wait a few days to hear a justification, but I'm dubious... Also, I really would prefer it is OFFICE actions were actually carried out by someone in the office, rather than through someone else. --Tango (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed true, that office actions should be done by somebody in the office. Office actions are done by staff, and nobody else. My deleting the image should not be misinterpreted as an office action (although it seems to be for some reason - I don't believe I've ever implied that it was), however, as stated on the closed deletion review, restoring the image (or not) seems to be an office matter, at least that is my interpretation of Morvens comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tango and Random, what is occurring here is no different from what is done for other organizations, this one happens to be names "Wiki" as opposed to "Mom&Pop Grocery of Podunk". Remember, that people make up "Wiki" too. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Coolcæser, I think you would find it helpful to contact myself or Rjd0060 offline. Not all privacy issues relate to accessible information. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania is apparently over, so what's the deal? --NE2 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard from Jimmy Wales and he's given me his reasons for wanting the image gone, and while they're pretty reasonable they sound like something that should be up to the community, not the office. I'm waiting on a reply from him now (it was only sent yesterday, so let's give him a chance). --Tango (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me state that I have taken no office actions personally, and I've been asked to clarify this on this page. The one action listed as an office action was done on my behalf as a result of an email response I sent out over my cellphone to the arbitration committee; from abroad and without my having full access to the details of the exchanges on wiki. I have corresponded with OTRS regarding our concerns as well as privately to some people in this discussion, and I encourage the community to act with diligence and common sense in this matter. Cary Bass (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If the community demonstrated a consensus for the image to be included, would the office and Jimbo respect that consensus, or would they impose their own will? DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll strike out the statement that it was an office action, then. Thank you. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a policy at Wikipedia:Obscure public information, please continue this discussion on that talk page. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What now?

There is no policy banning the image, there is no office decision banning the image, so what do we want to do with it? Does the image add sufficiently to the article be to worth including? --Tango (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My take: no, it doesn't, and this question of editorial value kind of got lost in the debate above. What does a quotidian office exterior add to the article? Not enough to justify its inclusion, in my opinion, especially given the concerns implied above. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sfmammamia. The Foundation doesn't work at the Googleplex, it's a non-descript office building. Not needed in the article. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is essentially trivia, so there's no real need to include it (as no third-part sources have had anything essential to say about the building AFAICT). But perhaps we should undelete it nevertheless (free image of building where a notable company resides; something we might need in the future). Kusma (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be uploaded to commons, really, shouldn't it? If so, we can upload it and the discussion about whether it should be kept can be had there, I don't know their policies. It's worth noting the (deleted) image here is currently protected - the reason given is that the address isn't published, which appears to be untrue (I haven't actually gone looking for it, myself), so it shouldn't be too difficult to find an admin to unprotect it. --Tango (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with it being useless; it shows one way that the foundation presents themselves to the outside world. It's not really that important, but I can see it as akin to photos of people mentioned in an article - it's nice if there's nothing else to include an image of. --NE2 23:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Providing personal identification to the Wikimedia Foundation

Just out of curiousity, how's that work? People stroll in and hand over a driver's license/social security card to be photocopied or a credit card imprint or what? I realize that such is part of a process that doesn't involve the vast majority of Wikipedia users -- I'm just curious. Thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite a visit. The identification (usually a copy of a drivers license or passport) can be sent to the foundation via Fax, mail, or e-mail. The specific instructions are on Meta, here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Legally recognized photo-ID, from what I know of it. When I had to ID for checkuser, I had to provide the community liaison official (Cary) with a copy of my Irish passport picture page and my California Driver's license - Alison ^❤ 00:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Documented fraud and corruption at Wikipedia etc...

September 4, 2008

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. P.O. Box 78350 San Francisco, CA 94107-8350 Organized under the laws of the State of Florida

Re: Documented fraud and corruption at Wikipedia etc.., and much more...

Attn: Mr. Jimmy Wales, Mr. Michael Snow and Mr. Godwin and all concerned parties.

Dear Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., etc... The following serious issues can be addressed and handled, either by a respected mutual resolution or through legal action.

1) Via documented corruption and fraud, certain Wikipedia editors and administrators, notably Blackpearl14 and Lessheard vanU have openly accused, I, Royce Mathew of “harassment”, “attacking” “stalking” and such. Utilizing their unique power, tools and resources provided by Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., they blatantly sought out and continue to seek out to threaten, hurt and damage contributing writers. These are serious allegations. However their corruption is not limited to themselves. Other editors and administrators are part of their network, who works with them in their purposely threatening and deliberate destructive operation. Wikipedia’s computer history has documented their actions. Photos are available. However, I firmly advise Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., to also preserve all of the evidence in light of possible litigation.

2) On or about September 2, 2008, Blackpearl14 ,who had already gone through various identity changes as allowed by Wikipedia, who is afforded certain power, tools and resources by Wikinews, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation, has deliberately and deceitfully edited my complaint letter posted on the Wikipedia’s administrators “talk” complaint board. She even cut out an entire paragraph from it. This was done without my knowledge, nor with my permission and is completely unacceptable. As electronic history recorded it, this was done to remove reported transcript evidence of her own self confessed bias, her own personal agenda, her own particular goals and her own self business associated with Wikipedia directly exploiting Wikipedia, it’s articles and the power provided to her. She also had made changes to her own personal bio pages after I sent her a copy of the letter, acting as if the transcript sources didn’t exist. After doing these corrupt acts, Blackpearl14 continued right on with her serious allegations against me. She had responded directly below the adulterated letter. Thus with her fraudulent and evident criminal acts, Blackpearl14 had corruptly altered and modified a letter to be deliberately representative of me, falsely presented it as being from me, and then herself and some of her fellow editors and administrators answered the letter as though they had only just read it. Using the tools, resources, and privileged authority, Blackpearl14 continues to succeed in leveling serious charges against me, even falsely accusing me of modifying her bio, adulterating my talk correspondence which sought intervention, and meanwhile her peers of editors and administrators, had aided her acts. To prevent any “undo” of Blackpearl14 deliberate adulteration of my letter, I was also blocked and any attempt to post a copy of the letter to yet again notify the administration of the serious issues at hand, were immediately deleted by Slakr. They are a wild gang with free total control, provided by Wikinews, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation, with which to recklessly cause harm and destruction, and wrongfully threaten and silence their victims. Wikipedia’s computer history has documented hers, her peers, editors and administrators continual acts. Photos are available. However, I firmly advise Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., to also preserve all of the evidence in light of possible litigation.

3) As documented, Blackpearl14's own statements and declarations are from the same person who with her fellow editors and administrators continue to uphold double standards, and level serious charges against me, including that I and other writers were bias about Pirates of the Caribbean and the Walt Disney Company and that I and other writers weren’t being neutral about Pirates of the Caribbean, and then used their powers, tools and resources afford to them by Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., with which to engage in various reckless and corrupt acts against me. For quick review, here is a collection of some of BLACKPEARL14 (uses various alias wikipedia names) self published bia quotes from 2007-through August 2008, on her own pages, as history recorded it, done by her, which she has clearly stated her bias purpose, her own bias causes and her own bias business. “I am Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean Sea along with my mate Jack Sparrow.” “I am the first Pirates of the Caribbean fan in the universe.” “I manage and contribute to my obsession Pirates of the Caribbean.” (Lists many pirates of the caribbean articles in wikipedia) “I am working my way into managing all Pirates of the Caribbean articles in the future that I can.” “I am the biggest Pirates of the Caribbean fan of all time!” “I have proof of it as well.” “I’m writing a book”. “I’m also a Pirates of the Caribbean consultant, if you have any questions, I own Bring me that Horizon forum.” “I am a big fan of Johnny Depp” “I am a big fan of Pirates of the Caribbean movies”. I have a “Pirates of the Caribbean obsession page - I’d advise you to keep your hat on and not vandalize the pages or you won’t be happy. Seriously.” “I am principal contributor of Pirates of the Caribbean articles.” “My knowledge on pirates spans from my favorite films Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3. Hence I am a Pirates of the Caribbean consultant.” “My Harry Potter obsession pages...” And much more. Wikipedia’s computer history has documented her actions. Photos are available. However, I firmly advise Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., to also preserve all of the evidence in light of possible litigation.

4) Various editors and administrators, copies of those names are on file, have deliberately deleted my talk / discussions from the website, rendering any complaint or communication impossible. These same editors and administrators have also worked together with which to block and ban my IP address, delete any letters coming through other IP addresses and make additional allegations against me. Through it’s editors and administrators, Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., continues to uphold double standards, including not following it's own policy of communications over issues and complaints. Thus the editors and administrators have total control, with their set of ever changing policies and double standards, including deleting anything that challenges their abuse of power and their own violations of Wikipedia and Wikinews written policies. They deceitfully use various terms with which to accuse, hinder, harass, threaten and block. They make various claims and requirements with which to uphold double standards, and then in a blink of an eye, they move to a whole new set of requirements or outright do corrupt acts against you to prevent any communication. Meanwhile, Wikinews and Wikipedia continues to solicit itself as free public forums that anyone can contribute and anyone can communicate as detailed by Wikipedia's own written policies. Wikipedia and Wikinews computer history has documented their actions. Photos are available. However, I firmly advise Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., to also preserve all of the evidence in light of possible litigation.

5) As documented, through the Wikipedia operations, Mr. Wales and his business have created and empowered volunteers but with either little or no oversight. What little oversight there is, is actually comprised of a rampant abuse of power, tools and resources, of which has been previously brought to the attention of Wikipedia and it’s associated companies, yet nothing was done to bring an end to this. Instead, as documented, Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., continues to allow it’s editors and administrator to freely change their screen names, mask their true identities, uphold double standards, threaten, delete history, delete talk and discussion, block and more. They are free to make serious charges against contributing people while removing, hindering and preventing the ability of the one being accused to respond. Only editors and administrators can freely level various allegations, apply double standards, then edit, delete, block and ban. All tools for communications with which to report abuse, violations and problems, as written by Wikipedia’s own polices, are controlled by these same editors and administrators. As documented with their acts, working like a gang, using the power, tools and resources afforded by Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., to deliberately cause emotion distress, slander and silence their victims. They also use these same power, tools and resources afforded by Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., to delete their recorded acts of fraud, corruption and double standards.

6) Wikipedia’s statements that it’s a free cooperative forum, yet it is a continual edited publication, and it has written policies along with this site and it’s associated companies which continues to solicit itself as a free public forum that anyone can contribute and anyone can communicate as detailed by wikipedia's own written policies. Yet based on the continuing actions of particular editors and administrators, they have made Wikipedia and Wikinews their own private forum and have taken away all of those things that are stated are in place for the contributing public. Meanwhile Wikipedia is generating hits, ranking status, income and clout from their various statements, and thus Wikipedia is committing at the very least fraud upon the public with it's continuous promotions, solicitations and statements. This is still a free public community cooperative forum for everyone, that continues to solicit itself as such, that is until Wikipedia formally changes it’s published written polices and solicitations. May I point out that it is reckless for you to state that Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia has no control over it’s volunteers actions, and thus is not liable. After you have given editors and administrators tools and resources, including total control over their own supervision and complaints, of with which after getting the public into your “free site”, they are unleashed to do whatever they want. Exactly, who are these people, and how did Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., verify that they don’t have their own bias, their own conflict of interest and their own personal business? No liability, yet Wikimedia Foundation, Wikinews and Wikipedia bestows powers, tools and resources to editors and administrators with which to affect and hurt other people. No liability, yet through Wikinews and Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation solicits for money, is incorporated and allows only certain people to have control of it’s free public cooperative operation forum, while allowing editors and administrators to continue to uphold double standards, level false charges, threaten, be reckless and more. Wikimedia Foundation, Wikinews and Wikipedia can’t control the ones you have placed in charge, affording them with powers, tools and resources, yet you purposely refuse to afford everyone the same tools and control. Evidently you would claim that you can’t give the contributing public the same tools and control because it would lead to abuse and allow corruption Yet this is what is occurring at the very least right now with your selected, voted and/or appointed collective band of editors and administrators. Thus if you again claim you are just a free forum, yet Wikimedia Foundation, Wikinews and Wikipedia can’t control the editors and administrators, as well as the ones you’ve placed in charge of supervision, and you won’t allow the contributing public access to the same tools and control with which to protect and defend themselves in this free forum of which you will probably claim that you have no liability in, then you shouldn’t be in business. For it is evident that Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation want it both ways.

6) In addition to the items detailed above, attached below are some excerpts of letters written to Wikipedia & Wikinews. Much of this was outright deleted by editors and administrators as they placed various blocks on my IP address, and leveled an assortment of various allegations. If Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., believes it can uphold double standards, allow these reckless, corrupt and evident criminal acts to occur, while it continues to solicits the public, while outright lying to the public and the government then we should head straight to court.

In closing, it will be seen if there is any acceptance of liability from Mr. Wales and his assortment of companies and foundation. I await a prompt reply to address these serious issues, including liability of Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation Inc., or must I file in court and with various government agencies in order for you to respond fully to the serious issues at hand, particularly those detailed above. At all points and discussion, I reserve all of my legal rights in regards to these and all issues.

Royce Mathew contact via email at [email protected] bcc:

Registered Agent: Wikimedia Foundation c/o CT Corporation System 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, California 90017

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. P.O. Box 78350 San Francisco, CA 94107-8350

Phone: +1-415-839-6885 Email: info(at)wikimedia.org Fax: +1-415-882-0495

A) You have double standards. Furthermore, you have stories which are all old news stories and Wikinews is a news archive... And thus to your own justification, stating that there are no current developments that make this newsworthy now, makes many of the other wikinews stories candidates for immediate deletion; and 3) And here is Wikinews own site statement for writing for wikinews: “We want you to write articles for Wikinews on topics that” “Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten or isn't getting enough attention in the rest of the press? Here's your chance to tell the world!” “Are important to you: The news you write can be about a global event or what's happening in your local town — we don't mind!” “But we also want you to edit and expand the other articles you see here.” Clearly I have done that and exceed those requirements, including that it meets the wikinews statement: “Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten?” The article I posted simply states the basis of the lawsuit and that Disney disputes those claims. It listed credible and verifiable sources and links. Yet you have justified reason upon reason not to post the article, nor did you make any attempt to allow it to be edited and added. You go against wikinews own polices.

B) As documented, you "SVTCobra" don't follow Wikinews' own written polices... “Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten?”. Then you justify reasons to state that the above article is not newsworthy, and that wiki does not write old news. You have also stated that wikinews does not add to the archive, which is untrue. You are reckless, for there are many wikinews stories that allows editing, and "wiki" states that they allow them to be edited long after. Wikinews states this in their own written polices. Nearly every story is old news. Wikinews isn’t only breaking news. And you have imposed a time limit of when a story must be written and submitted. That goes against wikinews own written polices. Following your imposed double standards, then you would have to delete nearly all of the archived news stories. Furthermore, most other stories, editors within wikinews, tags articles to re-edit it, however with this one, you right off the bat "dispute it and put it up for immediate deletion". And the so-called source you added, which you claim is a “source”, and “evaluates the basis of the case”, is a "blog" of people's chat. The caption of this blog states that the lawsuit is not worthy to the same article that you have tagged as being up for deletion. Yes, you have electronically admitted that a “blog” is a source to the article that you didn’t add to, nor did you rewrite the article, nor did you contribute to the article, nor did you tag it to be edited. Yet you had placed that blog link directly on top of the real verifiable sources, but you never edited the article itself, and have tagged the whole article as being up for deletion. Amazing that you are an editor. Thus in addition to the double standards, going against “do you know of an issue that has been forgotten”, you have vandalized the article itself, going against wikinews own written polices and then you have proudly admit it, while you had tagged it as being up for deletion. Please note, all sources which were listed, had Disney stating that the lawsuit had no merit, as they usually state in all lawsuits against them, and it states that in the article. The article as written, simply contains the basis of the lawsuit, who filed the lawsuit, the reaction to the lawsuit, and the parties involved in the lawsuit. All sources and links listed contain a public record of facts and information. For example, if you click on the link to the Walt Disney Company you get their website and everything about their company. If you click on the Pirates of the Caribbean link, you get all about the Walt Disney Company’s ride attraction. If you click on the link to Mr. Mathew, you can review actual photo public record exhibits and evidence from the lawsuit. The Walt Disney Company had chosen not to contain a link to the lawsuit. Thus, unless you allow this article to appear, following wikinews’ own written polices, (remember you can make edits to it, per wikinews’ own polices), or allow others to edit it, then you have proven that Wikinews as Wikipedia is control by some who don’t follow Wikinews’ own written polices. At least there is an electronic record of wikinews’ original polices, and an electronic record of wikinews’ double standards, your actions which all goes against wikinews own written polices. I also suggest you contact other editors and the owner of this company and notify them of your actions.

C) Wikinews editors don't follow Wikinews' own written polices... “Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten?”. Then you generate and justify reason after reason to state that the above article is not newsworthy, and that wiki does not write old news. You even say one thing, and then later change that to be different claims to justify deletion. You keep throwing different claims at an article you have targeted because someone had shown the charges to be untrue. Wikinews and Wikipedia continues to uphold double standards, and then make statements with which to justify it. Incredible, you ignore any details provided to your counter your claims, and then accuse the person of not acknowledging your control and your new set of claims. Are you aware that Wikinews editors and wikipedia are in conflict of interest as well? They proven that they have a network of supporting friends, using double standards, without following Wikinews and wikipedia's own written polices, and such. This includes Jeske Couriano who has also upheld double standards, and then is awarded by Blackpearl14.

D) Since “conflict of interest” is an important subject since “conflict of interest” is being herald by wikinews / wikipedia staff and volunteers, including being used by wikipedia/wikinews administrator Chris Mann and editor SVTCobra, with which to have an article /story be deleted, and is grounds for action against a contributor, then please immediately provide documentation that editors, administrators and people providing articles and information to wikipedia and wikinews have no conflict of interest to the articles and stories they create, edit, supervise and/or contribute. For example, did any editor have sexual relationship with a porn star or purchase movies or magazines of a porn star whose bio is listed on wikipedia? This is a conflict of interest. Another example, does any administrator, editor or volunteer of Wikinews and Wikipedia including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra”, “Chris Mann” and “Whoville” own Disney stock, have gone to any Disney theme park, watch Disney movies and/or buy Disney products? Then “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and all of these editors and administrators are in conflict of interest. Does the people involved with the wikinews articles about fossilized fish found in Canada, or with scientific discoveries or with lawsuits, have any connection to these products, places or businesses? Then this is a conflict of interest. What kind of verification did Wikinews and Wikipedia use to determine that volunteers including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” don’t sell Disney products and have no business with the Walt Disney Company and their affiliates? As documented volunteers including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” together claim “conflict of interest” and delete any contribution in regards to Pirates of the Caribbean for either wikinews or wikipedia, and control it by upholding double standards. Thus first we must verify wikinews / wikipedia enforcement of their policy of “conflict of interest” and “neutral” policies.

E) The Walt Disney Company page is not neutral, it is a series of promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company. Many of the other statements on the Walt Disney Company page don’t follow your so-called neutral definition. Following yours and your editors and administrators claim of “neutral”, the entire page would have to be deleted per your own standards. Furthermore, the lawsuit sentence that was placed on it, was exactly as the other statements of “criticism” within the Walt Disney Company page, yet you all claim it’s not neutral. When challenged, the collective of editors and administrators then claim it’s does not have any value and that it doesn’t have a certain outcome. Yet they all allow similar statements and material which doesn’t meet those exact every changing standards to be on the same articles. Clearly they enforce double standards and don’t adhere to wikipedia’s own written polices.

F) Blackpearl14 does not understand what vandalism is, and wrongly calls anyone who contributes per the polices of wikipedia a vandal. She is not neutral and is in complete conflict of interest. Based on Blackpearl4's own posting comments about herself, she believes Wikipedia is her forum and that she is owner and controller of anything to do with the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean. When you complain about her actions, she together with her editors and administrators wrongly level an assortment of allegations including stalking, harassment, attacking etc..

G) Blackpearll4 - calls herself evidently Mrs. Johnny Depp and Pirate lord-ess and such. She celebrates on her official wikipedia bio pages that she did many pages and articles on the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean for wikipedia. Why would someone devote so much time to 24/7 check the site and on these pages? Has her judgement become impaired? Her goal to fuse her love and fantasies with the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean is very clear. That is a conflict of interest and that is not being neutral. Sorry if your feelings are hurt, but if one purchases products, such as Pirates of the Caribbean posters, toys and Walt Disney merchandise and also using emotional love and fantasies for wikipedia / wikinews articles, doesn’t make the articles neutral and it causes a conflict of interest.

H) As recorded, Blackpearl14's pages regarding this issue are one sided, not neutral, are bias, in conflict of interest and are all promotional tools promoting the causes and products of the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean. Yes, Pirates of the Caribbean and similar wikipedia articles are not neutral, they are a series of one sided promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company. Following wikipedia’s own written “neutral” policy, entire articles would have to be deleted. Yet Blackpearl14 continues to violate Wikipedia polices and purpose.

I) Blackpearl14, Whoville and SVTCobra both continue to delete any critical fact or information, stating that it doesn’t meet their requirements, of which are generated to double standards, such as claiming it’s not newsworthy, not being current, or some other bogus excuse. Despite other information in the article appears not meeting those changing requirements and standards, both Whoville and SVTCobra don’t delete other critical facts or information using the same standards. Instead those are allowed. Hence Whoville and SVTCobra continue to apply double standards. When challenged, they bring in their peer who immediately deletes and bans IP addresses etc..

J) Here is a collection of some of BLACKPEARL14 (uses various alias wikipedia names) self published bia quotes from 2007-through August 2008: She has clearly stated her purpose, her own causes and her own business. “I am Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean Sea along with my mate Jack Sparrow.” “I am the first Pirates of the Caribbean fan in the universe.” “I manage and contribute to my obsession Pirates of the Caribbean.” (Lists many pirates of the caribbean articles in wikipedia) “I am working my way into managing all Pirates of the Caribbean articles in the future that I can.” “I am the biggest Pirates of the Caribbean fan of all time!” “I have proof of it as well.” “I’m writing a book”. “I’m also a Pirates of the Caribbean consultant, if you have any questions, I own Bring me that Horizon forum.” “I am a big fan of Johnny Depp” “I am a big fan of Pirates of the Caribbean movies”. I have a “Pirates of the Caribbean obsession page - I’d advise you to keep your hat on and not vandalize the pages or you won’t be happy. Seriously.” “I am principal contributor of Pirates of the Caribbean articles.” “My knowledge on pirates spans from my favorite films Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3. Hence I am a Pirates of the Caribbean consultant.” “My Harry Potter obsession pages...” - and much more.

K) Other editors and administrators who have proven their practice of bias and manipulative and outright double standards practices include “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and “Chris Mann”. We have documented that they say one thing, yet practice another. We have documented that they enforce one set of wikipedia polices yet discard and ignore those same policies when it applies to themselves or their selective circle of peers. We contributing writers also wonder just how many editors and administrators have a conflict of interest to various articles.

L) There is no way to discuss nor talk about the reckless actions of Blackpearl14 without saying and describing what they are. Yet, immediately, Blackpearl14 has wrongly and irresponsibly calls anyone placing anything critical or changes to certain pages she had appointed herself as self controller of, as “vandals” and outright claims that she is being “attacked”, and then goes to her peers with which to delete the talk and discussion, leaving only the editors and administrators’ comments and self bias online, while blocking IP’s. What is shocking that you don’t know who I nor other contributing writers are. Editors and administrators prevent and block other contributing writers from either contributing or creating their own articles of the same subject, and are held to different standards than their own peers.

M) Following wikipedia’s own written rules, as recorded, discussion “talk” was created to confront these issues and serious charges and threats against contributing people. Yet Blackpearl14 simply gets you, Lessheard vanU, to immediately block IP addresses and threaten more. Then she gives you an award saying that she is thanking you for protecting her from being “attacked”. Are you aware of wikipedia’s own written polices about communications? Us contributing writers are well aware of them. Have you read this one “when in doubt, don’t delete”? Proper and detailed wikipedia communications procedures were followed yet you “Lessheard vanU” have followed her reckless actions, giving her more unchecked power, control and validation. This is both reckless and dangerous. There are written policies that you broke when you outright deleted the “talk” and “discussion”. But evidently you don’t care.

N) On September 1, 2008, when placing a copy of this letter on any talk discussion pages including Blackpearl14 talk discussion page, or Lessheard vanU talk discussion page, as the wikipedia written policies state to due, they promptly delete it and report it as attacking, abuse etc... (see their talk / discussion history for their deletion of this letter) . Therefore a copy was added to the talk discussion section in the Wikipedia’s Administrator’s Notice board, opened by Blackpearl14 and Lessheard vanU with which to log a complaint, yet immediately, as the letter was being edited onto the talk section in the correct column, another administrator Rodhullandemu blocked the IP address stating disruptive editing. Blackpearl14 and Lessheard vanU both post a strict warning to not dare to place any talk on their talk discussion boards. Again Wikipedia editors and administrators are reckless and acting like a gang instead of a group.

O) Either there are the written policies of Wikipedia to be followed or by the actions of Wikipedia and Wikinews editors and administrators have proven it is overrun by double standards, corruption and recklessness. Wikipedia’s purpose isn’t to create kings, queens and monarchies, upholding double standards, and playing power trip games, unless that is the editors and administrators purpose. Wikipedia and Wikinews solicits itself as a free public forum, and details it’s own written polices, yet some editors and administrators have shown that they have seized control of Wikipedia and Wikinews, deliberately using it solely for their own personal agenda and causes, while wrongly blocking the public (other contributing writers) from using it, and continue to falsely solicit that it’s a free public forum. Thus if you yet again plan to delete this talk and discussion, continue to uphold double standards and generate more false claims with which to wrongly block and threaten against us contributing writers of whom follow Wikipedia’s written community policies, then first notify wikipedia’s owners and lawyers of your actions.

Royce Mathew contact via email at [email protected] bcc: