https://develop.consumerium.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=142.177.103.144&feedformat=atomConsumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T18:32:08ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.6https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=2516Wikimedia2004-02-16T04:07:43Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wikimedia''' is a private "foundation" in the US run by Jim Wales. In fact, it is a corporate entity. It has no [[independent board]], no [[legal charity status]] in any country, and seems to spend money it raises on a small clique of people mostly involved in "fixing" the inadequate [[mediawiki]] software (which does not even support full text searches in the [[Wikipedia]] project).<br />
<br />
It provides mostly bad examples for the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]], which would do well to avoid all the pitfalls it is falling into. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for a starting list of these, and references to potential solutions that 'Wikipedians' ignore and censor, many of which are longstanding sore points at [[Meta-Wikipedia]], e.g. [[m:regime change]].''<br />
<br />
Many specific people who participate in Wikimedia are also a problem. They should be excluded from [[Consumerium]] as anything other than ordinary users, as their participation and propaganda leads directly to many or most of the problems Wikipedia has. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Angela]] for one notable example, where a [[usurper]] engaged in [[sysop vandalism]] at [[Simple English Wikipedia]] had to be [[driven off by trolls]] for simply not seeing the long term impact of her own actions on that project.'' Some of these people simply by their tactics, e.g. [[spun death threat]]s as pioneered by Daniel Mayer and exploited by RickK, subvert [[due process]], degrade [[wiki management]], and cause a wiki-based information service to lose integrity. It's worth noting that Mayer was actually the one to register "wikimedia.org" and define its mandate. With people like this guiding the foundation, it can only collapse.<br />
<br />
Finally, the software problems should be considered carefully when choosing [[wiki code]] for beyond the [[R&D wiki]] phase. Mediawiki is not suitable if full text search is required, extension to requirements set by something other than the current Wikipedia social club is required, and if integrity of the overall software development process is required. [[MoinMoin]] has these...</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Due_process&diff=14449Talk:Due process2004-02-16T04:01:03Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sorry for the need to reference such filth as [[Wikimedia]] and refer to such pointless debates as [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]], but, any Wikipedians showing up have to realize right away that the [[Consumerium Governance]] problems are so different and more serious than a giant filing cabinet full of libellous trash like Wikipedia. If they import their habits here, we're dead. And since we will see more [[mediawiki]] than [[MoinMoin]] users, unfortunately, that means we have to take special steps to say "Hey, you can't do that over here."<br />
<br />
The best thing to do is move to better [[wiki code]] and deal with a better class of people, which suggests [[MoinMoin]] again.</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Due_process&diff=14448Due process2004-02-16T03:58:21Z<p>142.177.103.144: strongly differentiating the Consumerium approach from Wikimedia - if we don't, then "Wikipedians" will show up and try to do things "like we do in Wikipedia" which will certainly destroy Consumerium</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Due process''' is a legal term referring to a process that is evenly applied to all participants, with a clear and uniform [[standard of evidence]] that does not favour [[power structure]] insiders over outsiders, and which has the formal power and support of the enforcers, e.g. [[sysop power structure]], cops.<br />
<br />
When no due process exists, there is usually said to be no justice, no democracy, and no rights. These things are all thought in Western philosophy to proceed directly from due process.<br />
<br />
Usually, due process includes and is served by an [[adversarial process]] where parties present their cases in a neutral form and stick to the facts. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for one such adversarial presentation, which speaks to the need for [[faction]] structure and strict control over the [[developer]]s whose power can overrule even the [[sysop power structure]] and corrupt [[wiki management]] such as that which has already ruined [[Wikimedia]].''<br />
<br />
The [[Content Wiki]] will have more need for such a process than [[Opinion Wiki]], since its content directly alters the [[consumerium buying signal]]. However, even for opinions, there is a need for a significantly higher degree of due process than is applied in most [[large public wiki]]s. Failure to put it in place leads to [[usurper]] activity, [[framer]] tactics, and eventually [[cease and desist letter]]s that there is no clear [[paper trail]] to answer.<br />
<br />
All of this will collapse [[Consumerium Services]] in a hurry, so a clearly-documented accountable trail that shows how things alter the buying signal is critical. Probably it will not be complete and rigorous until there is a fully [[Transparent Consumerium]].</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Due_process&diff=2459Due process2004-02-16T03:54:38Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Due process''' is a legal term referring to a process that is evenly applied to all participants, with a clear and uniform [[standard of evidence]] that does not favour [[power structure]] insiders over outsiders, and which has the formal power and support of the enforcers, e.g. [[sysop power structure]], cops.<br />
<br />
When no due process exists, there is usually said to be no justice, no democracy, and no rights. These things are all thought in Western philosophy to proceed directly from due process.<br />
<br />
Usually, due process includes and is served by an [[adversarial process]] where parties present their cases in a neutral form and stick to the facts. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for one such adversarial presentation, which speaks to the need for [[faction]] structure and strict control over the [[developer]]s whose power can overrule even the [[sysop power structure]] and corrupt [[wiki management]].''<br />
<br />
The [[Content Wiki]] will have more need for such a process than [[Opinion Wiki]], since its content directly alters the [[consumerium buying signal]]. However, even for opinions, there is a need for a significantly higher degree of due process than is applied in most [[large public wiki]]s. Failure to put it in place leads to [[usurper]] activity, [[framer]] tactics, and eventually [[cease and desist letter]]s that there is no clear [[paper trail]] to answer.<br />
<br />
All of this will collapse [[Consumerium Services]] in a hurry, so a clearly-documented accountable trail that shows how things alter the buying signal is critical. Probably it will not be complete and rigorous until there is a fully [[Transparent Consumerium]].</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_of_evidence&diff=14447Standard of evidence2004-02-16T03:34:57Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''standard of evidence''' is a pre-determined filter on what will be heard or not heard in a [[due process]] or other rigorous process. For instance in science [[anecdotal evidence]] has no status, while in court it does, but [[hearsay]] has no status. <br />
<br />
''[http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Standard_of_evidence Disinfopedia studies this issue more carefully than most wikis] and so its article provides a better overview than anywhere else in the [[GFDL text corpus]].''</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Broken_telephone&diff=14446Broken telephone2004-02-16T03:32:51Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>The "'''broken telephone'''" is an important [[conceptual metaphor]] referring to loss of [[integrity]] in a spoken, and sometimes even written, comment over time. Failure to hear, to comprehend intent or context, paraphrasing, malice, and other factors are all involved. However, even with real incentives to get the message exactly right (such as a cash prize for the group that can create the longest chain of accurately repeated statements) all human groups fail to correctly relay a message past three or four voice-to-ear transactions. When a group relies on such unreliably relayed information and permits it to bounce from person to person, an [[echo chamber]] is created, whose output inevitably reflects not what was said or intended ''by'' the original speaker, but what the group assumes ''about'' the original speaker. This is one factor that goes into creating [[groupthink]] and rendering it impossible to make good decisions.<br />
<br />
Having a single common [[due process]] with a clear [[standard of evidence]] that gives [[hearsay]] no status, is probably the only known safeguard against these problems. Ensuring that hearsay has no status in a key decision by the [[sysop power structure]] is a main responsibility of the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]]. Failing to ensure this can make it legally liable.</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_management&diff=4639Wiki management2004-02-16T03:26:35Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wiki management''' of the [[Content Wiki]] and [[Opinion Wiki]], and the [[sysop power structure]] of each, is a major concern of [[Consumerium Governance]]. It must be supervised by the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] under the guidance of a genuinely [[independent board]].<br />
<br />
A poorly managed wiki, e.g. those run by [[Wikimedia]], can generate legal and goodwill problems that spread far beyond their own services. For instance, a [[libel pit]] amplified by an [[echo chamber]] can generate an unlimited number of [[cease and desist letter]]s from individuals who believe, probably correctly, they have been misrepresented or slandered by a [[bad copy problem]] or [[broken telephone]] picking up the output of the echo chamber.<br />
<br />
=== democratic user roles ===<br />
<br />
We may require formal [[Wiki Editor]] and [[Wiki Lawyer]]/advocate/mediator roles to guide [[Wiki Sysop]] behaviour. ''Left on their own they tend to be [[little tin god]]s - each hoping to grow up to be [[GodKing]]. This shouldn't be encouraged. Nor should a clique of [[usurper]]s doing [[sysop vandalism]], which seems to be the next step in the "evolution" away from GodKings to some [[priestly hierarchy]]. None of these poor management methods will be able to generate or respond to real world pressures, and only work in a fantasy world, like video games, which seem to be where many of these people learn all they actually know about management.''<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium buying signal]] will not stand up under scrutiny in a democratic society, or even [[cease and desist letter]]s directed to its board, unless it has democratic [[sysop power structure]]. Good sysops are disposable, period. Good editors are not. And good lawyers can keep your project going when it otherwise would be flushed down the toilet (see reference to [[Wikimedia]] above, which will almost certainly be destroyed by failure to democratize in time).<br />
<br />
=== problems ===<br />
<br />
Specific '''wiki management''' problems include, from longest to shortest term:<br />
<br />
==== infrastructural ====<br />
<br />
*Picking [[wiki code]] that actually makes it easy to do the above, and avoiding that which has requirements set by a small clique of control freaks.<br />
<br />
*Balancing [[Consumerium:contributor]] vs. [[Consumerium:editor]] balances of power. This may involve some mechanics, e.g. an explicit [[revert currency]].<br />
<br />
==== social ====<br />
<br />
*Knowing when [[written consensus]] is possible, e.g. using [[troll bridge]] approach, and when it's just going to continue as [[edit war]] forever no matter what, i.e. it is a [[Consumerium:political dispute]] or something that reflects a real world POV difference.<br />
<br />
*Knowing when [[soft security]] can't apply, e.g. definition of [[Consumerium:vandalism]].<br />
<br />
*Detecting and moderating [[usurper]] behaviour before they must be [[driven off by trolls]]; making sure that trolls do not unfairly charge the usurpers with things they have not actually done, or create their own [[echo chamber]].<br />
<br />
==== instructional ====<br />
<br />
*Degrading or placing on standby the status of those engaged in [[ad hominem delete]] or other transparency-reducing, content-degrading tactics, which can easily result in the database falling into a state where it is legally liable.<br />
<br />
*[[Desysopping]] those who participate in creating or echoing [[spun death threat]]s, or granting these credibility or official status beyond what was actually said; this sort of libel has extremely serious consequences in an age of no-fly lists. If a comment is an actual threat of specific violence, it must be investigated. If not, then claims that it is, must be put to rest, before the conflict over the comment escalates to the point of violence itself.<br />
<br />
*[[protected page]] mechanics<br />
<br />
People will actually care about the material we manage here. Jobs, companies, perhaps whole industries or national economies, will be at stake. It's foolish to imagine that [[Consumerium]] will not have all the same problems, and worse, than have been seen in every other [[large public wiki]], and some they haven't yet seen. If we are not prepared for the problems they ''have'' seen, it's not possible to be prepared for problems they haven't...</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_management&diff=2456Wiki management2004-02-16T03:25:26Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wiki management''' of the [[Content Wiki]] and [[Opinion Wiki]], and the [[sysop power structure]] of each, is a major concern of [[Consumerium Governance]]. It must be supervised by the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] under the guidance of a genuinely [[independent board]].<br />
<br />
A poorly managed wiki, e.g. those run by [[Wikimedia]], can generate legal and goodwill problems that spread far beyond their own services. For instance, a [[libel pit]] amplified by an [[echo chamber]] can generate an unlimited number of [[cease and desist letter]]s from individuals who believe, probably correctly, they have been misrepresented or slandered by a [[bad copy problem]] or [[broken telephone]] picking up the output of the echo chamber.<br />
<br />
=== democratic user roles ===<br />
<br />
We may require formal [[Wiki Editor]] and [[Wiki Lawyer]]/advocate/mediator roles to guide [[Wiki Sysop]] behaviour. ''Left on their own they tend to be [[little tin god]]s - each hoping to grow up to be [[GodKing]]. This shouldn't be encouraged. Nor should a clique of [[usurper]]s doing [[sysop vandalism]], which seems to be the next step in the "evolution" away from GodKings to some [[priestly hierarchy]]. None of these poor management methods will be able to generate or respond to real world pressures, and only work in a fantasy world.''<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium buying signal]] will not stand up under scrutiny in a democratic society, or even [[cease and desist letter]]s directed to its board, unless it has democratic [[sysop power structure]]. Good sysops are disposable, period. Good editors are not. And good lawyers can keep your project going when it otherwise would be flushed down the toilet (see reference to [[Wikimedia]] above, which will almost certainly be destroyed by failure to democratize in time).<br />
<br />
=== problems ===<br />
<br />
Specific '''wiki management''' problems include, from longest to shortest term:<br />
<br />
==== infrastructural ====<br />
<br />
*Picking [[wiki code]] that actually makes it easy to do the above, and avoiding that which has requirements set by a small clique of control freaks.<br />
<br />
*Balancing [[Consumerium:contributor]] vs. [[Consumerium:editor]] balances of power. This may involve some mechanics, e.g. an explicit [[revert currency]].<br />
<br />
==== social ====<br />
<br />
*Knowing when [[written consensus]] is possible, e.g. using [[troll bridge]] approach, and when it's just going to continue as [[edit war]] forever no matter what, i.e. it is a [[Consumerium:political dispute]] or something that reflects a real world POV difference.<br />
<br />
*Knowing when [[soft security]] can't apply, e.g. definition of [[Consumerium:vandalism]].<br />
<br />
*Detecting and moderating [[usurper]] behaviour before they must be [[driven off by trolls]]; making sure that trolls do not unfairly charge the usurpers with things they have not actually done, or create their own [[echo chamber]].<br />
<br />
==== instructional ====<br />
<br />
*Degrading or placing on standby the status of those engaged in [[ad hominem delete]] or other transparency-reducing, content-degrading tactics, which can easily result in the database falling into a state where it is legally liable.<br />
<br />
*[[Desysopping]] those who participate in creating or echoing [[spun death threat]]s, or granting these credibility or official status beyond what was actually said; this sort of libel has extremely serious consequences in an age of no-fly lists. If a comment is an actual threat of specific violence, it must be investigated. If not, then claims that it is, must be put to rest, before the conflict over the comment escalates to the point of violence itself.<br />
<br />
*[[protected page]] mechanics<br />
<br />
People will actually care about the material we manage here. Jobs, companies, perhaps whole industries or national economies, will be at stake. It's foolish to imagine that [[Consumerium]] will not have all the same problems, and worse, than have been seen in every other [[large public wiki]], and some they haven't yet seen. If we are not prepared for the problems they ''have'' seen, it's not possible to be prepared for problems they haven't...</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_management&diff=2455Wiki management2004-02-16T03:23:48Z<p>142.177.103.144: italicizing side note</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wiki management''' of the [[Content Wiki]] and [[Opinion Wiki]], and the [[sysop power structure]] of each, is a major concern of [[Consumerium Governance]]. It must be supervised by the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] under the guidance of a genuinely [[independent board]].<br />
<br />
A poorly managed wiki, e.g. those run by [[Wikimedia]], can generate legal and goodwill problems that spread far beyond their own services. For instance, a [[libel pit]] amplified by an [[echo chamber]] can generate an unlimited number of [[cease and desist letter]]s from individuals who believe, probably correctly, they have been misrepresented or slandered by a [[bad copy problem]] or [[broken telephone]] picking up the output of the echo chamber.<br />
<br />
=== democratic user roles ===<br />
<br />
We may require formal [[Wiki Editor]] and [[Wiki Lawyer]]/advocate/mediator roles to guide [[Wiki Sysop]] behaviour. ''Left on their own they tend to be [[little tin god]]s - each hoping to grow up to be [[GodKing]]. This shouldn't be encouraged. Nor should a clique of [[usurper]]s doing [[sysop vandalism]], which seems to be the next step in the "evolution" away from GodKings to some [[priestly hierarchy]]. None of these poor management methods will be able to generate or respond to real world pressures, and only work in a fantasy world.''<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium buying signal]] will not stand up under scrutiny in a democratic society, or even [[cease and desist letter]]s directed to its board, unless it has democratic [[sysop power structure]]. Good sysops are disposable, period. Good editors are not. And good lawyers can keep your project going when it otherwise would be flushed down the toilet (see reference to [[Wikimedia]] above, which will almost certainly be destroyed by failure to democratize in time).<br />
<br />
=== problems ===<br />
<br />
Specific '''wiki management''' problems include, from longest to shortest term:<br />
<br />
==== infrastructural ====<br />
<br />
*Picking [[wiki code]] that actually makes it easy to do the above, and avoiding that which has requirements set by a small clique of control freaks.<br />
<br />
*Balancing [[Consumerium:contributor]] vs. [[Consumerium:editor]] balances of power. This may involve some mechanics, e.g. an explicit [[revert currency]].<br />
<br />
==== social ====<br />
<br />
*Knowing when [[written consensus]] is possible, e.g. using [[troll bridge]] approach, and when it's just going to continue as [[edit war]] forever no matter what, i.e. it is a [[Consumerium:political dispute]] or something that reflects a real world POV difference.<br />
<br />
*Knowing when [[soft security]] can't apply, e.g. definition of [[Consumerium:vandalism]].<br />
<br />
*Detecting and moderating [[usurper]] behaviour before they must be [[driven off by trolls]]; making sure that trolls do not unfairly charge the usurpers with things they have not actually done, or create their own [[echo chamber]].<br />
<br />
==== instructional ====<br />
<br />
*[[Desysopping]] those who participate in creating or echoing [[spun death threat]]s, or granting these credibility or official status beyond what was actually said; this sort of libel has extremely serious consequences in an age of no-fly lists. If a comment is an actual threat of specific violence, it must be investigated. If not, then claims that it is, must be put to rest, before the conflict over the comment escalates to the point of violence itself.<br />
<br />
*[[protected page]] mechanics<br />
<br />
People will actually care about the material we manage here. Jobs, companies, perhaps whole industries or national economies, will be at stake. It's foolish to imagine that [[Consumerium]] will not have all the same problems, and worse, than have been seen in every other [[large public wiki]], and some they haven't yet seen. If we are not prepared for the problems they ''have'' seen, it's not possible to be prepared for problems they haven't...</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_management&diff=2454Wiki management2004-02-16T03:22:52Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Wiki management''' of the [[Content Wiki]] and [[Opinion Wiki]], and the [[sysop power structure]] of each, is a major concern of [[Consumerium Governance]]. It must be supervised by the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] under the guidance of a genuinely [[independent board]].<br />
<br />
A poorly managed wiki, e.g. those run by [[Wikimedia]], can generate legal and goodwill problems that spread far beyond their own services. For instance, a [[libel pit]] amplified by an [[echo chamber]] can generate an unlimited number of [[cease and desist letter]]s from individuals who believe, probably correctly, they have been misrepresented or slandered by a [[bad copy problem]] or [[broken telephone]] picking up the output of the echo chamber.<br />
<br />
=== democratic user roles ===<br />
<br />
We may require formal [[Wiki Editor]] and [[Wiki Lawyer]]/advocate/mediator roles to guide [[Wiki Sysop]] behaviour. Left on their own they tend to be [[little tin god]]s - each hoping to grow up to be [[GodKing]]. This shouldn't be encouraged. Nor should a clique of [[usurper]]s doing [[sysop vandalism]], which seems to be the next step in the "evolution" away from GodKings to some [[priestly hierarchy]]. None of these poor management methods will be able to generate or respond to real world pressures, and only work in a fantasy world.<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium buying signal]] will not stand up under scrutiny in a democratic society, or even [[cease and desist letter]]s directed to its board, unless it has democratic [[sysop power structure]]. Good sysops are disposable, period. Good editors are not. And good lawyers can keep your project going when it otherwise would be flushed down the toilet (see reference to [[Wikimedia]] above, which will almost certainly be destroyed by failure to democratize in time).<br />
<br />
=== problems ===<br />
<br />
Specific '''wiki management''' problems include, from longest to shortest term:<br />
<br />
==== infrastructural ====<br />
<br />
*Picking [[wiki code]] that actually makes it easy to do the above, and avoiding that which has requirements set by a small clique of control freaks.<br />
<br />
*Balancing [[Consumerium:contributor]] vs. [[Consumerium:editor]] balances of power. This may involve some mechanics, e.g. an explicit [[revert currency]].<br />
<br />
==== social ====<br />
<br />
*Knowing when [[written consensus]] is possible, e.g. using [[troll bridge]] approach, and when it's just going to continue as [[edit war]] forever no matter what, i.e. it is a [[Consumerium:political dispute]] or something that reflects a real world POV difference.<br />
<br />
*Knowing when [[soft security]] can't apply, e.g. definition of [[Consumerium:vandalism]].<br />
<br />
*Detecting and moderating [[usurper]] behaviour before they must be [[driven off by trolls]]; making sure that trolls do not unfairly charge the usurpers with things they have not actually done, or create their own [[echo chamber]].<br />
<br />
==== instructional ====<br />
<br />
*[[Desysopping]] those who participate in creating or echoing [[spun death threat]]s, or granting these credibility or official status beyond what was actually said; this sort of libel has extremely serious consequences in an age of no-fly lists. If a comment is an actual threat of specific violence, it must be investigated. If not, then claims that it is, must be put to rest, before the conflict over the comment escalates to the point of violence itself.<br />
<br />
*[[protected page]] mechanics<br />
<br />
People will actually care about the material we manage here. Jobs, companies, perhaps whole industries or national economies, will be at stake. It's foolish to imagine that [[Consumerium]] will not have all the same problems, and worse, than have been seen in every other [[large public wiki]], and some they haven't yet seen. If we are not prepared for the problems they ''have'' seen, it's not possible to be prepared for problems they haven't...</div>142.177.103.144https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Cease_and_desist_letter&diff=14445Cease and desist letter2004-02-16T03:18:55Z<p>142.177.103.144: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''cease and desist letter''' is a legal warning to stop doing something. It is commonly used in the following situations:<br />
*[[patent infringement]]<br />
*[[trademark dilution]] or [[passing off]]<br />
*[[copyright violation]]<br />
*(spoken) [[slander]] or (written) [[libel]] regarding a person's actions or character<br />
*"[[interference]]" in a contractual relationship, actively attempting to get one or more parties to breach a contract<br />
*"[[restraint of trade]]" or monopoly reinforcing activities, which can be very broadly interpreted to include off-putting comments about a whole industry, or, a range of suppliers within it; In some places, like Texas, even [[defaming food]], e.g. beef that has eaten feed made of ground-up cows, is actionable.<br />
<br />
Effectively, such letters threaten a [[civil lawsuit]]; In cases of [[libel]] or some forms of restraint of trade, criminal penalties may apply. They are often used to silence critics of corporate abuses, and we must expect they will be received often by the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]]. It must in turn be able to respond clearly why it believes it is not guilty of these particular violations. Of course, one cannot argue that the law should not exist, that is the role of a [[political party]] or [[lobby group]], which we are not. The best responses to each type of letter should be detailed here, and the type of information we would need to respond to each type of letter effectively to end the controversy, must be solicited in [[wiki management]].</div>142.177.103.144