Jimmy Wales wrote:
>It is not 100% clear to me what the community views the limits of my
>constitutional powers to be in situation like this. It would be good
>to have this clarified, so that I could make appropriate proclamations
>at appropriate times so as to ensure that behavior like this is not
>implicitly rewarded by the (necesssary) time delays of the arbitration
>committee.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy
According to the arbitration policy, you are effectively the court to
which decrees of the arbitration committee can be appealed. Since the
situation arose from such a decree, I think we can take a broad view and
consider the circumstances a form of appeal. And to the extent that this
appeal raised questions not directly considered during arbitration (for
example, Quagga's behavior), I'm comfortable with you handling those
issues as well. As part of an appeal, I think you can still be, in legal
terms, a court of original jurisdiction.
>In my opinion, when a banned user makes direct threats of a "war"
>including elaborate proclamations as to how he's going to use a large
>number of proxies, sock puppets, whatever, it would be best for me to
>firmly and immediately declare that this is an extra-ordinary case and
>that the ban is extended indefinitely until appeal is made to the
>arbitration committee.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy
Since we seem to have determined that evading a ban causes the ban
period to start over, I don't think additional declarations are
necessary. "Banned users with poor self-control may end up banning
themselves indefinitely", no intervention by you is required.
Also, while the arbitration committee may be slow, they did already
provide for an additional 30-day ban at their discretion if Wik tried to
circumvent the decree. If Wik did return after serving his one-week ban,
I trust implementing that would be a simple formality.
>But I think it would be fine, and safe, if it were clear that I still can ban in some extra-ordinary cases,
>
I know extraordinary measures may seem necessary in the heat of the
moment, but even this incident is starting to fade a little, and I think
our procedures are holding up reasonably well. In the end, of course,
you still have the authority to ban people. The thing is, that's not an
extraordinary power, we can just say it's inherent in being a court of
appeal. You can, if you choose, modify arbitration rulings, including
shortening, lengthening, or imposing bans. The real problem, as Fred
already identified, is having to study the case enough to make an
informed decision.
--Michael Snow
In a message dated 6/1/2004 9:34:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
The side which provides reference and sources in an argument should be
given preference. Opposition to those sources is valid, but that too
needs some basis in reality. It is not enough to oppose something
because it would cause embarassment to one's favoured side.
Agree. 172 also happened to provide sources and this should certainly be
taken into consideration. VV seems to be a POV warrior on this one.
Danny
It's nice to see people discuss all sorts of things here on the mailing
list, but have I again missed out on something essential such as when the
database is going to be unlocked (and what the "software upgrade" is all
about)? All I found -- and I had to try to edit something before I
discovered the message -- is the text below. How long is it going to take?
All day? All week?
"The database is currently locked to new entries and other modifications,
probably for routine database maintenance, after which it will be back to
normal. The administrator who locked it offered this explanation:
The database is temporarily locked for a software upgrade"
KF
According to my reading of the edit history of [[Augusto Pinochet]],
both 172 and VV engaged in a "more than 3 times" reversion war.
I hold 172 more responsible, because he's an admin and should know
better. But VV did the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Augusto+Pinochet&action=histo
ry&limit=100&offset=0
I think they should both be banned for 3 weeks, and also that 172 should
lose sysop privileges for 3 months (after which he can re-apply via the
usual community process).
Ed Poor
Bureacrat
Viajero wrote:
> Ed, a process for dealing with such conflicts is
> evolving and it is called the Arbitration Committee.
> Such matters aren't tackled on an ad hoc manner on the
> ML anymore.
Eh, what's that, sonny? Speak up, so dear old Uncle Ed can hear you; I'm
getting hard of hearing and forgetful in my old age. ;-)
In the last six months, the conflict-resolution process has changed
faster than I can keep up with it. Clearly the days are gone when I was
counted on as a sort of second-to-last resort to take bold action when
the committees were taking endless amounts of time to consider an issue
and getting nowhere. But what happened to quickpolls? By the time I
finally figured out how they worked, and was ready to submit a case, I
was told they no longer existed.
Help a poor old man cross this street, and you're sure to win a merit
badge!
Gray-haired Uncle Ed
Euhhhhh, bonne fête cher Brion ?
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Saluton!
>
> I hereby decree, in my usual authoritarian and bossy manner, that
> today (June 1st) shall forever be known as Brion Vibber day.
> Wikipedians of the distant future will marvel at his incredible
> dedication and hard work, without which the project should have
> collapsed a long time ago. Tonight at dinner, every Wikipedian should
> say a toast to Brion and his many inventions.
>
> On Brion Vibber day, Wikipedians everywhere greet each other in
> Esperanto.
>
> Dankon, Brion.
>
> Bondezirojn,
>
> --Jimbo
Wik has declared a "War" on Jimbo's talk page. He appears to feel that
since there are a large number of proxies he could use, that there is
nothing we can do to stop him. I disagree. There is only one of him, and
hundreds of us. I suggest we adopt the following approach.
For admins
1) revert anything wik posts no matter what it is or where it is posted
to. (Jimbo has a note on his talk page asking people not to revert,
Jimbo would make an exception in this case please, Wik needs to get the
message that he is not permitted to post anywhere for a period of 7
days)
2) Block the IP in question for 7 days
2) If he is logged in as a sockpuppet do not bother to warn if you are
_sure_ it's him.
For non admins
1) revert as above and make sure you put Wik as the reason in the
summary box. That way any admin RC watching can block the IP in question
For everyone
Keep an eye on [[wikipedia:block log]] look out for mistakes by admins,
we don't want to block innocents. Check range blocks very carefully to
make sure they are legit, done correctly, and have an appropriate
message so that innocents don't get confused.
_Do not_ under _any_ circumstances speak to Wik. Not to antagonize him,
or to support him. He is banned for 7 days. He is not respecting it but
we all should. (Lot's have people have argued that the AC is too
reluctant to act, or that they are too powerless; in this case the AC
has acted. The AC's authority comes from us, if _we_ don't respect AC
rulings then _we_ undermine the AC's power. An important precedent is
being set here, no matter how much we hate or love Wik we _must_ support
the AC by our own actions)
Keep this up until we have a 7 day period of no posting by Wik. Once the
7 days are up, unblock all Wik accounts and welcome him back (unless the
AC decide otherwise in the meantime).
Any objections?
Theresa
Saluton!
I hereby decree, in my usual authoritarian and bossy manner, that
today (June 1st) shall forever be known as Brion Vibber day.
Wikipedians of the distant future will marvel at his incredible
dedication and hard work, without which the project should have
collapsed a long time ago. Tonight at dinner, every Wikipedian should
say a toast to Brion and his many inventions.
On Brion Vibber day, Wikipedians everywhere greet each other in
Esperanto.
Dankon, Brion.
Bondezirojn,
--Jimbo
Regarding the legal risk of violating GFDL (and thereby someone's copyright)
on en. Wikipedia:
American Wikipedians are reasonably safe, I suppose. I am not sure about
non-American en. Wikipedians, since that may entail implications on
international jurisdiction and choice of law.
Whenever we speak of legal risks associated with GFDL, we have to face the
issue that at least in English Wikipedia, there seems to be no official,
agreeed-upon interpretation of the GFDL (what is "work"? who are the
copyright holders? are images under GFDL? is Page history the history as in
GFDL? etc.)
But that aside, here are the defenses that I find quite significant:
1) We only need substantial, reasonable compliance rather than a strict,
literal compliance.
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-November/000084.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Michael_Snow/Candidate_stat…)
2) One has to register his copyright work. Unless otherwise, he may not be
able to sue the violator in a Federal Court.
(http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Do_fair_use_images_violate_the…
* and
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-February/000261.html)
* A sidenote - Although Alex's remark there is a bit agressive, the matter
is now solved between the involved parties, as I understand.
3) Coauthors of a work cannot sue each other regarding copyright violation.
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-February/000261.html)
4) The moral rights are not protected under the U.S. copyright law much, so
that even if a lawsuit is brought up, there won't be much of a damage to be
found.
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014275.html)
5) In addition, if Terms of Use becomes effective sometime in the future, as
proposed in the expanded version, it may prevent any lawsuit between two
Wikipedians. See the arbitration clause in the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Terms_of_use_(proposal)
All combined, it seems that current practice is reasonably safe for American
Wikipedians. Yet it seems quite possible, for example, a troll registers a
work and tries to sue someone who strip attribution from his contribution by
moving it to meta or a talk page from village pump.
Also, some features of the U.S. courts are said to be riskier or a bit
unpredictable in comparison to Japanese courts. (See:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.legal/263)
And last, but not the least, I am not sure if it is okay to just say that we
should keep violating GFDL just because it cannot be held accountable in
court.
So again, it is better to have something like the PD license in palce even
from at this point, I am inclined to think.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. And the citations I provided above are not
legal opinions, either.)
Best,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Learn to simplify your finances and your life in Streamline Your Life from
MSN Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0405streamline.armx
On the Internet, one must be constantly aware that discussions that
"feel" as if they are taking place in a club-like atmosphere of a few
dozen people are, actually, completely open to the public. (The
Pentagon does not need to log my USENET posts in any Total Information
Awareness program; Google News, and Deja News before it have already
done that!).
In Votes for Deletion, conversations are sometimes conducted as if they
were taking place behind a contributor's back, with the sillier items
being openly sneered at and ridiculed. A lot of these remarks are
actually witty, e.g. "Delete this before his vanity develops an event
horizon" or "Delete. Delete fast. Delete ruthlessly. (this has nothing
to do with the [actual content], but I can't stand it when people use
'principal' when they mean 'principle')"
Unlike a closed-door executive session, these frank discussions are not
only taking place in public, but the contributor has been
all-but-invited to them by the placement of the VfD notice. Moreover,
the contributor may not arrive until a number of remarks have
accumulated or may not choose to announce his presence immediately.
In the case of the "event horizon" remark, there was actually a nice
symmetry, because the subject of the article had a weblog, _linked from
the article,_ in which _he_ was making rude remarks about the people
who were trying to get his article deleted.
Although the edit submission page warns that contributions be "edited
mercilessly," I do not believe that it is clear to a newcomer that the
seemingly wide-open opportunity to add a page is coupled with the
possibility that the page will be deleted. (This has recently been
addressed by a paragraph on "notability" on the
Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Keep_in_mind) page). I am sure that there are many
people who semi-innocently think that an encyclopedia page with a
friend's bio is a pleasant and amusing gift—rather like having
the International Star Registry name a star for them, only it's free.
And I am sure there are many pushy self-promoters actively looking for
fresh walls on which to paste their posters who do not see any "Post No
Bills" notice. Trickiest of all, as with USENET, I sometimes see
submissions that give me the impression being of well-meaning efforts
from people whose social and/or communications skills are marginal.
In reality, discussions on VfD _need_ to be frank and often critical,
and having a page undergo the VfD process must be enormously
ego-bruising, and there is probably not a lot that can be done to
soften the process.
But, particularly in VfD, discussants should maintain an awareness that
the contributors whose items are being discussed are quite likely to be
newbies, and are quite likely to be _present_.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/