User talk:Enforcer

This page was the was subject of an MfD discussion closed on 2 November 2006. The result was Strong keep, as this is the only record of the user's block. Original text of the page begins below. Xoloz 13:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you're trying to get Wikipedia in trouble? Why?

--Samuel J. Howard 02:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is already in trouble. I am trying to get Wikipedia to comply with the law, so contributors can know who else contributes, the value of their contributions, where their contributions go, and that Wikimedia Foundation complies with the same laws that govern all other charitable organizations operating from the state of Florida.

By the way, is there some, umm, policy here against pursuing any line of discussion that does not blythly presume Wikipedia's current leadership is absolutely correct in all they say and do? If so, that would not seem consistant with the goal of developing accurate and neutral language. The message you are asking about is posted below, for the benifit of anyone else interested in your question. Happy May Day. Enforcer 02:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, the above comment (particularly the portion about "the sound of your own thoughts") is a personal attack and is against policy. Desist immediately. - Fennec 05:15, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Desist what? You are refering to the past, not to an ongoing pattern of behavior. Comparing discussion about the requirements of a newly formed non-profit to the marketing of quack remedies can be considered a personal attack. I have deleted Guanaco's comment, along with my reply, in keeping with typical practices of several administrators who routinely delete comments from their user-talk spaces. Are you looking for a conflict or are you attempting to undertstand a non-profit's responsibilities under the law? Also, I have not disclosed my gender, so your use of the gender specific term "sir" offends my dignity. Enforcer 05:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Enforcer, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. I suspect that you might already know this though - see you around, Mark Richards 02:55, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of non-compliance with Florida charitabale solicitations law[edit]

You are invited to consider Wikimedia Foundations compliance, or lack thereof, and to pursue a possible complainant against the Wikimedia Foundation for violations of Florida Statutes Title XXXIII, (Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Investments and Solicitations), Chapter 496 (Solicitation of Funds). [1]

The act requires any charitable organization in the state of Florida, such as the Wikimedia Foundation, to register [2] with that state's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and to disclose [3] their activities in annual statements, available to donors and to the public. Wikipedia Foundation has so far attempted to evade the letter and spirit of Florida law by claiming its published solicitations for editorial contributions and cash donations "is not and should not be considered a solicitation to make a donation." The claim is as false as would be the claim of a panhandler on a sidewalk rattling coins a tin cup that such activity is not panhandling. Wikimedia Foundation, on links provided from every page, solicits readers to contribute editorial content ("edit this page") and presents links to a soliciation to "donate if you can afford it." [4] That is a solicitation, regardless the pages attempt to say black is white. You can form your own opinions if claiming that a request to "donate if you can afford it" is not a solicitation is accurate and neutral information, as Wikipedia claims to provide.

Florida law states "'Solicitation' means a request, directly or indirectly, for money, property, financial assistance, or any other thing of value on the plea or representation that such money, property, financial assistance, or other thing of value or a portion of it will be used for a charitable or sponsor purpose or will benefit a charitable organization or sponsor. [5]

Florida law states "'Solicitation' includes, but is not limited to, the following methods of requesting or securing the promise, pledge, or grant of money, property, financial assistance, or any other thing of value: (a) Any oral or written request; (b) Making any announcement to the press, on radio or television, by telephone or telegraph, or by any other communication device concerning an appeal or campaign by or for any charitable organization or sponsor or for any charitable or sponsor purpose; (c) Distributing, circulating, posting, or publishing any handbill, written advertisement, or other publication that directly or by implication seeks to obtain any contribution; [6]

Wikmedia Foundation solicits cash donations, in-kind donations of editorial services and in-kind donations of technical services. You may pursue prosecution of Wikipedia Foundation by contacting the Florida Division of Consumer Services of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. [7], and may investigate the status of Wikimedia Foundation's reports at the Division's on-line charitable organizations reporting page [8]. You may make an on-line complaint to the Division at http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/ccform.html. Thank you for your interest in protecting the integrity of human knowledge, and for whatever interest you might develop in upholding the rule of law regarding charitable contributions, and compliance with the law among rouge on-line charitable organizations.

Enforcer

I was just curious; Wikimedia Foundation hasn't even existed for a whole year yet, so there wouldn't yet be an annual report, if that's one of the things you're seeking. I'm a little concerned about the issue you raise regarding solicitation of funds -- the language does appear to be disingenuous, but then again, I don't speak legalese. Have you thought about bringing this issue to one of the Wikipedia mailing lists or to Jimmy Wales, rather than taking the potentially incendiary step of asking for official complaints to be made with the Florida government? We're generally reasonable around here, and I like to think that all concerns will be given due consideration. It feels to me like you're assuming bad faith where the only problem may be ignorance. -- Seth Ilys 03:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, Seth. I assure you, I did not launch this enforcement action without first undertaking an investigation. I have foregone investigation of Jim Wales' commercial activities for several years as an unregistered charitable organization. I have also thoroughly investigated the community self-perception that "we are generally reasonable around here" and found it a less than reliable assertion.

The claim that a request to "donate if you can afford it" is not a solicitation is sufficiently egregious to make any further attempts to negotiate directly with the alleged offender, in a venue controlled by the offending organization, an unproductive endeavor. An easy remedy for Wikipemedia Foundation would be for the foundation to immediately, as soon as is practicable, post on-line all reports it has made to the State of Florida and to the U.S. Department of Treasury. Otherwise, if Wikimedia Foundation has not offended Florida laws, it has nothing to fear from a consumer effort to assure consumers' rights are protected in accordance with the law.

Enforcer 03:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked, though, and been turned down? If so, can you point me to it? You can't know that an effort will be unproductive until you've tried, after all, and it doesn't take much effort to try. -- Seth Ilys 03:36, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Confronting violators who are certain of their righteousness does in fact take a lot of effort. How is advising charitable donors of their rights under the law incindiary? When a charitable organization claims that the phrase "donate if you can afford it" is not a soliciation, and thereby raises $27,695.73, why should citizens of the United States not avail themselves of their rights under the law? A pattern of petulant withholding of information is further evident in press accounts that say the Foundation has raised nearly twice that amount [9], in the omission of a reported evaluation of Jim Wales' ongoing donations of bandwidth, physical plant, maintenance services and hardware, and in a failure to timely report expenditures of the foundation.

Why should I have to ask Wikimedia at all? Why are not the incorporating documents, the applications for non-profit status, and other related documents not already available on-line to potential donors. I, for one, will withhold any contributions of editorial services until Wikimedia Foundation is forthcoming about how and where it solicits donations, including in-kind donations. Enforcer 04:05, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Seth, I considered your reasoning that Foundation's filings might not yet appear on the Florida Division of Consumer Services web site because of the newness of the Foundation. And I considered again the Foundation's assertion that a solicitation is not a solicitation. I now suspect the Foundation makes the implausible assertion in anticipation of an effort to evade filing requirements in the several dozen other states that require such reports. Based on your analysis, I will develop a list of other states where a charitable foundation is required to report fund-raising activities. Thanks for your insightful analysis. Enforcer 04:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions on the wiki are inappropriate[edit]

Sir, while it may or may nor be within your legal rights to pursue the course of action which you seem intent on pursuing, I believe I speak for most of the community (although doubtless with some notable, very vocal, exceptions) when I say that it is less than appropriate to solicit "possible complainants" in the manner in which you have done. You should probably not continue with this activity; it could easily be construed as being against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. In fact, continued solicitaion will likely get you blocked.

Furthermore, if the supposed noncompliance with this law is truly an issue, why not contact the Wikimedia foundation directly via the Wikipedia:mailing list (or even on the Wikipedia:Village pump) and raise the legal concerns with its lawyers? Your current approach (starting a lawsuit) is much less friendly. Do you want the foundation to go to court, or do you merely want it in compliance with the law? Do you want to help Wikipedia, or do you want to hurt it?

Thank you for your concern, and thanks in advance for any compliance with these instructions which you may choose implement in the future. - Fennec 05:11, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me. I've not been sure whether you're trying to start a lawsuit or just get lots of people to complain so there will be a lawsuit or legal action. Neither is nice. - Fennec 05:32, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Since when is exercising one's rights under the law not nice? Last I checked with most of my neighbors, attempting to evade the law was considered not nice, and interfering with people who attempt to uphold the law is not nice. Enforcer 05:35, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivial for exercizing rights under the law to be not nice. Your specific unniceness, however, comes from attempting to pursue this affair in a matter in a way which I believe you hope will cause harm to Wikipedia, rather than in a way which would bring Wikipedia in compliance with any laws which it may not be in compliance with in a method which would not involve harm to the foundation. - Fennec 05:39, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

You, Fennec, appear to be assuming bad faith, and are threatening to resort to technical measures to interfere with dialogue that is taking place entirely within the user space of contributors who chose to engage in dialoge. You are implying that those users are lesser persons, which is a personal attack. If Wikipedia were in violation of the law, yes, I would advocate legal action against the Foundation. I would prefer that the foundation comply with the law. My obeservation has been that many contributors do not appreciate common standards developed among the community of publishers, and I am learning that the Foundation appears not to appreciate standards adopted my many state legislatures governing the behavior of charitable organizations. I don't beleive it at all inappropriate to confront the immaturaty of a newly formed charitable organization. Enforcer 05:47, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The essential impropriety of your position, in my view, is that you consider yourself an arbiter of what is "nice" while you refuse to acknowledge that your POV might be no more credible than that of another who finds certain actions to be not nice - particularly the action of claiming that a request to "donate if you can afford to" is not a solicitation. In doing so, you seem to be telling me I have less status as a person than you do. That is not nice. Enforcer 05:47, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on behalf of the taxpaying citizens of Florida (of which I am not a member) I would ask you to attempt to pursue this in a way which will not cause the court system to waste time, effort, and money. - Fennec 05:41, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

As a tax-paying citizen of a state in which a Florida-registered charity is soliciting funds I hope you would ask your state officials to require that charities registered in your state comply not only with Florida laws, but with the laws of the other 49 states where the Foundation solicits donations of money and services. If you are an administrators of this association of which I have now become a member by contributing these keystrokes, you are in a better position than I to persuade the new Foundation to comply with the letter and the spirit of the laws in the states where it now operates. Enforcer 05:47, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a better time "convincing" the foundation if your first step was not to threaten legal action. Meelar 05:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe or maybe not. I am not looking for pats on the back, or for a seat on a board of directors. When confronting a group that is extremely confident of the rightness of its own actions, and has shown little interest in complying with standards of a greater community beyond itself, I find it a more effective strategy to walk in well armed - not with my own guns, but citing the lawful force held by 50 attorneys general who can use actual force to demand compliance with the communities represented by elected legislatures in 50 states.

Like a young person, Wikipedia is a young community that does not readily recongize its obligations in a larger community. Enforcer 05:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please study Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. One of the ones listed is arming for war. Fennec 06:02, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

I studied that page long ago. I found it not to be the final word, and found the presumption of assuming altruism to be inconsistent with the prevailing sciences regarding human motivation. Complaining about my conversation with three or four interested users may be a poor way to find entrance into a dialogue. You might find more solid footing by appreciating my effort to develop legal advice, no matter how the advice appears to you on the surface. It is something I am spending time giving to a community - whether that community be a subset of concerned Wikipedia members, or to the greater community of citizens of the United States of America by assisting the few who are concerned about the actions of a newly formed charitable organization. Enforcer 06:10, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Denounce crimes/misbehaviour[edit]

If you are so sensitive to (presumed by you) legal misbehaviour, you ought to:

If you think the Wikimedia Foundation is acting in good faith, tell the board of directors (or whatever it is called) that they may be acting against the law.
If you think the Wikimedia Foundation is acting in bad faith, denounce it to the police/State's Prosecutor/...

But in no case waste your time telling everybody something you are not able to prove/disprove (because you are not able to handle in any paper in this place).

But maybe you are not acting in good faith and I should just stay quiet. Pfortuny 08:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith and bad faith might have little relevance in analysis of crowd dynamics. Enforcer 08:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, you are analysing crowd dynamics. I thought I was dealing with a standard-deviation coherent misbehaviour leader anthroposofist which wanted to prove his last megalotheory. Now it is clear. See you. Pfortuny 10:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comrade and Happy May Day! Can you pull up some evidence of this website violating Nevada Law, because i'm resident of Las Vegas, I might consider filing if this site is violation of Nevada (as I am a tax paying and voting Nevadan)

Well well well. It looks like we have someone who could be opening themselves up to a nice lawsuit. You do realise Enforcer that you have made a statement that is easily demonstrated false. Checking Florida records for registration would be very easy. Jim Wales has said that the Wikimedia Foundation is registered in Florida, and I have no reason to doubt him. Your attack is damaging his reputation, and since he is not a public figure, the proof level for a libel action is lower.

If you do take the remarkably stupid step of filing a suit, expect a countersuit for libel. You would very likely deserve it. David Newton 14:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Belated May Day greetings! 172 07:51, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC. is a legal non-profit in the State of Florida. The Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations document number is N03000005323. The legal argument you are making is very shaky since the solicitation is not active, and requires the potential donor to access such solicitation on their own free will. Another Florida based charity, Locks of Love, does actively solicit donations of both hair and money, but is exempted from registration in other states because it neither spends any money on nor uses employees for promotions, advertising, and soliciting - beyond its own Florida based website. Such actions on its behalf are performed in other states by volunteers or other organizations. I strongly suggest you obtain legal counsel before continuing this campaign.

Jimbo's response[edit]

from village pump

Jimbo has written a comprehensive answer to this on the en.wikipedia mailing list (essentially: the claims are false, and he endeavours to go "above and beyond what is required of us"). The post also covers various clarifications of the status and roles of himself, Bomis, and the Wikimedia Foundation; and his vision of the future, including a well-run and transparent Foundation. Recommended reading for anyone interested in the wider picture of how Wikipedia and its sister sites are run. - IMSoP 17:04, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Delete Debate[edit]

Archived delete debate on User:Enforcer: Template:VfD-UserEnforcer