Office actions

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:46:53 -0800, theProject
<wp.theproject@...> wrote:

>How would Wiki[m/p]edia, in the United States, be subject
>to a law in the United Kingdom? Just because some country has a law that
>would prevent Wikipedia from stating something about some particular topic
>doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow it.

Ah, well.  First up, the editor who posted the verifiable info was not
in the UK, so was, as you suggest, probably safe, but Lauder-Frost had
solicitors' letters sent to at least one editor threatening legal
action, and that's why Sussexman is indef-blocked.  It's a it like the
Scientologists - the threat of all that cost and aggravation can be
enough.

However... Brad's opinion (and that of several others who know the law
in the UK) was that the claim was bogus anyway.  Plus, of course, the
Foundation is not in the UK.  But these things can have degrees of
enforceability outside of their home territory, depending on the
involvement of other parties.  I think Lauder-Frost would first of all
have to take down the London Gazette, which contains official records
which corroborate the events, and that's not happening any time soon.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> But...
>
> We still have the odd cases like Gregory Lauder-Frost where the office
> action was the result of his legal advisors stating that we could not
> mention his conviction for fraud because of the UK's Rehabilitation of
> Offenders Act.  That demands actual legal advice.  As it happens, the
> Act only prevents "spent" convictions being mentioned in a defamatory
> way, there is no apparent restriction on coverage in a neutral,
> independent biography, and his friends did not help his case by
> initially including the case but claiming that he had been cleared on
> appeal - it was possible (though certainly not trivial) to verify that
> this was simply not true, and it was only when we included the
> citations to back up the conviction and failed appeal that they pulled
> the office stunt.
>
> In these cases it is good to have feedback, even if the feedback is a
> weekly "sorry, no progress yet".  And it would be good to know if
> there is a particular issue which needs to be addressed.

Right, and that case WAS different, since we were (are?) unclear on
exactly what the legal situation is.

Most of these cases don't involve such bizarre complexities though.
They are about bios that have been wrecked by trolls who hate someone,
and all that is needed is for someone good to go through and carefully
write a sensible bio.

We do need to have a way of distinguishing these cases.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)]

I've been closely following the thread about WP:Office actions and
appreciated what clarification has been provided as to the different types
of Office actions that can be taken.  If I am reading things
correctly, I gather there is a distinction between (1) a page that is fully
Office Protected (meaning that it basically shouldn't be edited at all
without express Office permission; this is a rare status, there are only 7
such pages as of now in the whole project); and (2) and a page that has been
Office Blanked/Stubbed (meaning the article needs to be redone but feel free
to edit as long as it's in accordance with policy including WP:Living).  In
due course, the WP:Office page might be clarified in this regard as there
does seem to be widespread uncertainty.

Another WP:Office related question on which clarification might be in order
is under what circumstances an administrator or editor should call
situations to the Office's attention.  A few weeks ago, I came across a
serious legal threats situation involving threats to sue the Foundation
unless changes were made in an article immediately.  I suggested on one of
the noticeboards that this seemed like the sort of thing that the Office
would want to know about right away.  I was e-mailed by two people who
indicated that the Office actually prefers that administrators deal with
these situations on their own without getting the Foundation involved.  Some
clarification on when the Office should be notified of the various types of
threats and other situations that arise could be helpful so that admins and
editors are able to do the best possible job of protecting the Foundation
and the contributors.  This is a concrete issue that comes up every week,
any insight would be helpful.

Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:03:02 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...>
wrote:

>We do need to have a way of distinguishing these cases.

As long as we have some idea what the grounds for objection were, the
application of Clue should be sufficient.  Hopefully protection will
do that, since admins are supposed to posses that elusive quantity.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:03:02 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...>
> wrote:
>
>> We do need to have a way of distinguishing these cases.
>
> As long as we have some idea what the grounds for objection were, the
> application of Clue should be sufficient.  Hopefully protection will
> do that, since admins are supposed to posses that elusive quantity.
>

The number who have been desysopped suggests otherwise.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

> The number who have been desysopped suggests otherwise.

How many people have been forcibly desysopped? I don't think it's many...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ryan Wetherell]

On 12/18/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> > The number who have been desysopped suggests otherwise.
>
> How many people have been forcibly desysopped? I don't think it's many...

About a dozen, last time I counted.

--Ryan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)]

On 12/18/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius@...> wrote:

>
> On 12/18/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> > > The number who have been desysopped suggests otherwise.
> >
> > How many people have been forcibly desysopped? I don't think it's
> many...
>
> About a dozen, last time I counted.
>
> --Ryan

That's about right, according to the list available at:
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship]].

"Newyorkbrad"

_______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

> About a dozen, last time I counted.

Less than 1% of admins, then... I don't think that suggests anything.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jeff Raymond]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> About a dozen, last time I counted.
>
> Less than 1% of admins, then... I don't think that suggests anything.

It suggests that it takes a lot to de-admin someone.  I'm not entirely
sure that's a good thing, but I'm not sure how to solve it anymore,
either.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 18/12/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond@...> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:

> >> About a dozen, last time I counted.

> > Less than 1% of admins, then... I don't think that suggests anything.

> It suggests that it takes a lot to de-admin someone.  I'm not entirely
> sure that's a good thing, but I'm not sure how to solve it anymore,
> either.


I don't think it's a bad thing. Before 2006, de-adminning was
ridiculously rare. Unfortunately, with so many more users we have
hugely more admins, so we're going to be wrong about the "basic sanity
check" from time to time. The ArbCom does de-admin when it's called
for.

Though cluification is *always* preferred, and a bit of positive peer
pressure (honey catches more flies than vinegar) from fellow admins,
in a collegiate spirit, goes a long and productive way. I've seen a
lot of admins I thought would be disasters turn out fine, so I worry a
lot less now.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

> Though cluification is *always* preferred, and a bit of positive peer
> pressure (honey catches more flies than vinegar) from fellow admins,
> in a collegiate spirit, goes a long and productive way. I've seen a
> lot of admins I thought would be disasters turn out fine, so I worry a
> lot less now.

Maybe we need a new subpage of the admin noticeboard for determining
consensus on whether or not an admin made the right decision. At the
moment, admins sometimes go to AN/I and say "I've done this, was I
right?" which is great, but I think a more formal process would be
good (and a way for other people to ask the question).

Someone explains the admin action, then other admins state whether or
not they endorse it. In most cases, we'll just get a load of "
'''Endorse''' --~~~~" comments, and that should shut up anyone
complaining about the admin action. In cases where the admin action is
more questionable, it can be discussed more fully and a course or
action decided upon, rather than it becoming a wheel war. This is
essentially what happens on AN/I already, but I think it should happen
more often (not for every action, obviously, but anything
controversial - it should only take a few admins a couple of minutes
to check and endorse an action), and slightly more formally.

If we had this process, we would be able to catch admins making
questionable decisions before they start making outright wrong
decisions, and we move the "You're abusing your powers, unblock my
friend now" comments from the admin's talk page, to a central place
where we can help deal with them.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[dmehkeri]

>
> > About a dozen, last time I counted.
>
> Less than 1% of admins, then... I don't think that suggests anything.
>

I think it suggests the opposite, in fact.

I originally wrote a post about "skewed perspective", but I just used that
phrase. Also, my post had "signal to noise ratio". Ugh. I had to trash it,
before I start saying things like Non-Notable Good Faith POV Original Research
Fair Use Consensus Process.

Dan



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:

>Another WP:Office related question on which clarification might be in order
>is under what circumstances an administrator or editor should call
>situations to the Office's attention.  A few weeks ago, I came across a
>serious legal threats situation involving threats to sue the Foundation
>unless changes were made in an article immediately.  I suggested on one of
>the noticeboards that this seemed like the sort of thing that the Office
>would want to know about right away.  I was e-mailed by two people who
>indicated that the Office actually prefers that administrators deal with
>these situations on their own without getting the Foundation involved.  Some
>clarification on when the Office should be notified of the various types of
>threats and other situations that arise could be helpful so that admins and
>editors are able to do the best possible job of protecting the Foundation
>and the contributors.  
>

I agree with the two e-mails that you received.  To understand this
requires an appreciation of the subtle distinction between the roles of
the Foundation and the various communities that operate under its wing.  
If the function of the Foundation is to serve as some kind of ISP it
does not know about most of these suspicious edits.  This is on a more
serious level than just playing dumb.  In a sense sourcing is just as
important for complaints as for claims in an article.  I believe that
for a person to have a valid claim, he must first of all have standing.  
This is a matter of either being directly affected, or being officially
authorized to represent such a person.  If the office were to act on
every claim by a third-party do-gooder the situation would be much
worse, and the office would soon grind to a halt.

There are many, many more admins than there are Foundation trustees and
employees.  Why should they not be the ones to clean up the situation
when they are apprised of the situation?  An experienced admin is not
new to legal threats.  Admins as a group have the tools to deal with
such people.  While there may be situations involving threats of
physical violence where the office should be notified, we also should
not presume that the office is manned 24/7.  The threatened person could
be dead before the office even has a chance to open.  Admins based in
Europe, North America and Australia are together in a much better
position to give 24/7 coverage. If someone feels that he has been
treated unjustly, and receives no satisfaction from the admins it's up
to him to notify the Foundation in whatever way he deems appropriate.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

theProject wrote:

>Whoa, whoa, whoa. How would Wiki[m/p]edia, in the United States, be subject
>to a law in the United Kingdom? Just because some country has a law that
>would prevent Wikipedia from stating something about some particular topic
>doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow it. If we followed North Korean or
>Chinese or Iranian laws on free speech, I have the feeling some of our
>articles would be pretty blank. :-)
>
While the placement of the servers and offices gives primary legal
jurisdiction to the United States, this is not a green light for
ignoring the laws of other countries completely.  People in many
countries become justifiably upset when Americans take this route.

A respect for the legal culture of other countries helps to build mutual
co-operation even if there is no conceivable avenue for enforcing those
laws.  Why shouldn't North Korean, Chinese or Iranian law be respected
when they are relevent?

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On 12/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:

> theProject wrote:
>
> >Whoa, whoa, whoa. How would Wiki[m/p]edia, in the United States, be subject
> >to a law in the United Kingdom? Just because some country has a law that
> >would prevent Wikipedia from stating something about some particular topic
> >doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow it. If we followed North Korean or
> >Chinese or Iranian laws on free speech, I have the feeling some of our
> >articles would be pretty blank. :-)
> >
> While the placement of the servers and offices gives primary legal
> jurisdiction to the United States, this is not a green light for
> ignoring the laws of other countries completely.  People in many
> countries become justifiably upset when Americans take this route.
>
> A respect for the legal culture of other countries helps to build mutual
> co-operation even if there is no conceivable avenue for enforcing those
> laws.  Why shouldn't North Korean, Chinese or Iranian law be respected
> when they are relevent?
>
> Ec

A lot of what gets written would get people arrested or worse
elsewhere in the world.

This even applies in Europe - see Irving just having gotten out of
jail in Austria.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

On 12/21/06, George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
> A lot of what gets written would get people arrested or worse
> elsewhere in the world.
>
> This even applies in Europe - see Irving just having gotten out of
> jail in Austria.

Bits of europe. Our legal systems are not harmonised (heh even the
legal systems within the UK have their differences).


--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Mark Wagner-2]

On 12/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:
> A respect for the legal culture of other countries helps to build mutual
> co-operation even if there is no conceivable avenue for enforcing those
> laws.  Why shouldn't North Korean, Chinese or Iranian law be respected
> when they are relevent?

So, no maps showing that Kashmir is not entirely and undisputedly part
of India.  No pictures of women with uncovered faces.  No criticism of
Kim Jong-Il.  No mention that Arab countries call it the Arabian Gulf,
or that most other countries call it the Persian Gulf.

There's a whole lot that we couldn't include in Wikipedia if we were
to respect all the relevant laws of countries where Wikipedia is
accessible.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 12/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:
>  
>
>>A respect for the legal culture of other countries helps to build mutual
>>co-operation even if there is no conceivable avenue for enforcing those
>>laws.  Why shouldn't North Korean, Chinese or Iranian law be respected
>>when they are relevent?
>>    
>>
>So, no maps showing that Kashmir is not entirely and undisputedly part
>of India.  No pictures of women with uncovered faces.  No criticism of
>Kim Jong-Il.  No mention that Arab countries call it the Arabian Gulf,
>or that most other countries call it the Persian Gulf.
>
>There's a whole lot that we couldn't include in Wikipedia if we were
>to respect all the relevant laws of countries where Wikipedia is
>accessible.
>

Respect for foreign laws does not extend to abjectly kowtowing to all
their peculiarities.  That would be impossible even if we knew them
all.  If we must follow Indian law about Kashmir we must also follow
Pakistani law on the same issue.

Much of the respect comes from applying NPOV, and treating everyone with
fairness, and taking note of the fact that Wikipedians living in those
countries have to live with what they have.  If the common criticisms of
Kim Jong-Il are valid it still does not justify gratuitously insulting
language.  If the United States ignores the copyright laws of another
country because it does not have copyright relations with it, that does
not mean that we too should be free to ignore them.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l