Or are admins on their own legally? An authorized WMF agent needs to answer this... rather than random people guessing based on what ifs and maybes (as is happening on the Brandt discussion).
Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why? Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and knowledge of any admins. I'm terribly afraid that the WMF will not do a thing to not risk losing claimed and still untested Sec. 230 immunity in the United States.
Can you be more specific? Why would the WMF need to legally support an admin.
Mgm
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Or are admins on their own legally? An authorized WMF agent needs to answer this... rather than random people guessing based on what ifs and maybes (as is happening on the Brandt discussion).
Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why? Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and knowledge of any admins. I'm terribly afraid that the WMF will not do a thing to not risk losing claimed and still untested Sec. 230 immunity in the United States. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Can you be more specific? Why would the WMF need to legally support an admin.
Admins "enforce" policies and actions on the website, and are empowered to do so by the WMF (high ranking WMF people 'give' them the ability and buttons/position). If an admin gets sued by someone over some administrative action they took on behalf of WP/WMF, or gets caught up in litigation involving WP/WMF, would the WMF indemnify them/help out?
Or are all admins considered by the WMF legally separate from themselves, to maintain the claimed Sec. 230 immunity?
On 19/04/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Can you be more specific? Why would the WMF need to legally support an admin.
Admins "enforce" policies and actions on the website, and are empowered to do so by the WMF (high ranking WMF people 'give' them the ability and buttons/position).
The admins are chosen and appointed by the community, not by the foundation. The foundation does not control the community.
On 4/19/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The admins are chosen and appointed by the community, not by the foundation. The foundation does not control the community.
If legally true, the WMF needs to say this and record it so that all admins know that legally they are on their own for any action they may take.
Um, why should that be necessary? I always assumed this to be common sense.
Info Control wrote:
If legally true, the WMF needs to say this and record it so that all admins know that legally they are on their own for any action they may take.
[oops, resend to list]
On 19/04/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The admins are chosen and appointed by the community, not by the foundation. The foundation does not control the community.
If legally true, the WMF needs to say this and record it so that all admins know that legally they are on their own for any action they may take.
It is true; the Foundation is no more responsible for a user's actions than they are for a user's writing or a user's thoughts.* I don't know what legal force the Foundation restating basic facts would have, nor what point it would serve - surely any individual capable of functioning in society knows full well that they should be responsible for what they do?
Incidentally, your demands for this and that to be done for Dread Legal Reasons would be taken more seriously if, you know, you gave your name.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
* A caveat may apply for a very small fraction of users who do work directly "for" the Foundation - OTRS correspondents, say - but I wouldn't stake money on it, and those aren't who we're discussing
On 4/19/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- A caveat may apply for a very small fraction of users who do work
directly "for" the Foundation - OTRS correspondents, say - but I wouldn't stake money on it, and those aren't who we're discussing
Uh, there is a nice disclaimer on every email sent out by OTRS, saying (approx.) that "This email was answered by volunteers and does not represent an official communication of the Wikimedia Foundation", so I'd doubt this a bit... Michael
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/04/07, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- A caveat may apply for a very small fraction of users who do work
directly "for" the Foundation - OTRS correspondents, say - but I wouldn't stake money on it, and those aren't who we're discussing
Uh, there is a nice disclaimer on every email sent out by OTRS, saying (approx.) that "This email was answered by volunteers and does not represent an official communication of the Wikimedia Foundation", so I'd doubt this a bit...
I did say "may" :-) It strikes me that anyone named by the WMF to deal with an external party might concievably be in some way legally their problem - I can't offhand think how, but it does seem plausible. I mean, if I use that access to do nasty things such as releasing private correspondence, one could argue the WMF was partially liable for giving me such access. Nothing to do with their normal on-wiki actions, but a potential liability regarding their ability to go crazy.
Anyway, this isn't really related to the topic in question - I mentioned it as an aside to clarify that these *weren't* the cases we're talking about!
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The admins are chosen and appointed by the community, not by the foundation. The foundation does not control the community.
If legally true, the WMF needs to say this and record it so that all admins know that legally they are on their own for any action they may take.
This is already evident. With the exception of Office actions carried out by paid employees, members of the board, and other agents of the Foundation, all contributions to all Wikimedia projects are voluntary and are carried out of the volunteer's free will and using his or her best judgement. Volunteers are all individually responsible both morally and at law for their actions, just as if they posted on a forum website or on Usenet.
It would perhaps be helpful if this were stated more clearly, but it's hardly an exceptional situation.
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Volunteers are all individually responsible both morally and at law for their actions, just as if they posted on a forum website or on Usenet.
Tony, no court has decided this, and it's far from clear that a court would agree with it, given that a member of the board is acting as the publisher. This is what's causing people concern in terms of good governance, and it's why I wrote earlier that the loose arrangements of the past, which were fine for a small organization, need to be replaced by some clear separation of powers.
Sarah
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Can you be more specific? Why would the WMF need to legally support an admin.
Admins "enforce" policies and actions on the website, and are empowered to do so by the WMF (high ranking WMF people 'give' them the ability and buttons/position). If an admin gets sued by someone over some administrative action they took on behalf of WP/WMF, or gets caught up in litigation involving WP/WMF, would the WMF indemnify them/help out?
Or are all admins considered by the WMF legally separate from themselves, to maintain the claimed Sec. 230 immunity?
People are legally responsible for their own edits. I don't see how admin actions are any different.
Mgm
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
People are legally responsible for their own edits. I don't see how admin actions are any different.
The current text when you go to edit says:
"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*."
Perhaps it should say:
"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. You are legally responsible for all edits and actions on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not indemnify for actions you take on it."
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it should say:
"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. You are legally responsible for all edits and actions on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not indemnify for actions you take on it."
That sounds like a good idea. If you edit the text to day this I'll support it.
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a good idea. If you edit the text to day this I'll support it.
The general idea is to keep that text as short as possible to encourage people to read it (that is why we have the asterisk rather than what it links to there). Unless you can show there are a significant number of people who do not think they are legally answerable for their actions on Wikipedia I see no need for any change.
On 19/04/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it should say:
"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. You are legally responsible for all edits and actions on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not indemnify for actions you take on it."
That sounds like a good idea. If you edit the text to day this I'll support it.
Well, it's accurate. But the thing is, if you're not familiar with Wikipedia, it is not self-evident that copyvio material will be deleted or that your contributions should be verifiable. It is still reasonably evident, though, that as in all things you are responsible for your own actions.
In other words: we need the three that are already there. Adding anything more is really just padding it out.
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why? Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and knowledge of any admins. I'm terribly afraid that the WMF will not do a thing to not risk losing claimed and still untested Sec. 230 immunity in the United States.
An example might really clear this discussion up. When I delete something, I'm not really acting on behalf of the foundation at all. I'm acting as myself with consensus driven policy to back me up. Legally I don't really even understand what the issues might be. No one has a right to post a picture of their cat to wikipedia, so when I delete it, I don't really feel as if I've opened myself up to any legal claims. *confused*
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On one hand, I don't believe anyone really would have a leg to stand on in any court trying to sue someone over an administrative action of a website. The owners of the website have full control over the content, as well as the authority to delegate that control to anyone they see fit to do the job (I know, I am a moderator for another site). Personally, I believe the complaintant would be laughed out of court. HOWEVER, I believe what Info Control is trying to ask is:
A)In that rare circumstance where someone does decide to go to court with an admin over an administrative action, will the WMF step in and say "Wait, hold on... This person was delegated authority by us, the site owners, to control content." and atleast try to keep it from becoming costly litigation on the shoulders of the individual editor.
and
B)If this is not the case, is the WMF, etc., prepared to notify all admins that "If you're sued because of an administrative action, you're on your own. If you get stuck in lengthly litgation because the complaintant found the one judge in the world that would hear it, well sorry to say you are screwed. But remember, this was in good faith!"
Info Control, does that about properly sum up your argument?
-Cascadia
"Info Control" infodmz@gmail.com wrote in message news:def5f7d40704191251n4c77d723nf01e28678e36ef40@mail.gmail.com...
Or are admins on their own legally? An authorized WMF agent needs to answer this... rather than random people guessing based on what ifs and maybes (as is happening on the Brandt discussion).
Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why? Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and knowledge of any admins. I'm terribly afraid that the WMF will not do a thing to not risk losing claimed and still untested Sec. 230 immunity in the United States. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
A)In that rare circumstance where someone does decide to go to court with an admin over an administrative action, will the WMF step in and say "Wait, hold on... This person was delegated authority by us, the site owners, to control content." and atleast try to keep it from becoming costly litigation on the shoulders of the individual editor.
and
B)If this is not the case, is the WMF, etc., prepared to notify all admins that "If you're sued because of an administrative action, you're on your own. If you get stuck in lengthly litgation because the complaintant found the one judge in the world that would hear it, well sorry to say you are screwed. But remember, this was in good faith!"
Info Control, does that about properly sum up your argument?
Yes, thank you.
No need to clarify this, it's rediculously obvious. And if it's not obvious to someone, I would argue that that person does not have the necessary cognitive ability to effectively help write an encyclopedia.
-Brock
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
On one hand, I don't believe anyone really would have a leg to stand on in any court trying to sue someone over an administrative action of a website. The owners of the website have full control over the content, as well as the authority to delegate that control to anyone they see fit to do the job (I know, I am a moderator for another site). Personally, I believe the complaintant would be laughed out of court. HOWEVER, I believe what Info Control is trying to ask is:
A)In that rare circumstance where someone does decide to go to court with an admin over an administrative action, will the WMF step in and say "Wait, hold on... This person was delegated authority by us, the site owners, to control content." and atleast try to keep it from becoming costly litigation on the shoulders of the individual editor.
and
B)If this is not the case, is the WMF, etc., prepared to notify all admins that "If you're sued because of an administrative action, you're on your own. If you get stuck in lengthly litgation because the complaintant found the one judge in the world that would hear it, well sorry to say you are screwed. But remember, this was in good faith!"
Info Control, does that about properly sum up your argument?
-Cascadia
"Info Control" infodmz@gmail.com wrote in message news:def5f7d40704191251n4c77d723nf01e28678e36ef40@mail.gmail.com ...
Or are admins on their own legally? An authorized WMF agent needs to answer this... rather than random people guessing based on what ifs and maybes (as is happening on the Brandt discussion).
Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why? Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and
knowledge
of any admins. I'm terribly afraid that the WMF will not do a thing to not risk losing claimed and still untested Sec. 230 immunity in the United
States.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
No need to clarify this, it's rediculously obvious. And if it's not obvious to someone, I would argue that that person does not have the necessary cognitive ability to effectively help write an encyclopedia.
-Brock
There's plenty of people who are totally clueless when it comes to any sort of law (especially copyright law). If they are willing to learn or simply avoid possible legal complications, they're still quite capable of helping out.
Mgm
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Control is trying to ask is:
A)In that rare circumstance where someone does decide to go to court with an admin over an administrative action, will the WMF step in and say "Wait, hold on... This person was delegated authority by us, the site owners, to control content." and atleast try to keep it from becoming costly litigation on the shoulders of the individual editor.
Why would they say a thing like that?
What kind of things are we expecting admins to get sued over? If an admin does something illegal, it is the admin that is responsible, quite obviously (not that I can see anything with illegal potential among the admin tools). If the WMF were to protect admins that are sued unfairly, the WMF would need to determine whether or not the legal action is justified, which is the whole point of the court case. Are the board meant to guess the outcome of the trial and if they guess it will be not guilty then they lend a hand?
I can't see anything an admin could do within the policies of any Wikimedia project that would put them at risk legally. If you get sued unfairly, then you can always counter-sue for the costs. Finding the money to pay a lawyer until the end of the trial might be tricky, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could get someone to do it pro bono.
I specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could be taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant being laughed out of the court room, but we're talking about those situations where the case goes before "The one judge in the world who would hear it".
-Cascadia
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0704191628l500b3fc4x40f789058bcffa46@mail.gmail.com...
What kind of things are we expecting admins to get sued over? If an admin does something illegal, it is the admin that is responsible, quite obviously (not that I can see anything with illegal potential among the admin tools). If the WMF were to protect admins that are sued unfairly, the WMF would need to determine whether or not the legal action is justified, which is the whole point of the court case. Are the board meant to guess the outcome of the trial and if they guess it will be not guilty then they lend a hand?
I can't see anything an admin could do within the policies of any Wikimedia project that would put them at risk legally. If you get sued unfairly, then you can always counter-sue for the costs. Finding the money to pay a lawyer until the end of the trial might be tricky, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could get someone to do it pro bono.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
I specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could be taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant being laughed out of the court room, but we're talking about those situations where the case goes before "The one judge in the world who would hear it".
Then we're talking in advanced hypotheticals. The WMF can't guarantee to back all possible legal actions concerning all possible admin actions, but that doesn't mean the WMF declares it won't under even the circumstance you describe. In such a case, I think fighting funds and publicity would work a lot better and quicker.
- d.
I specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could be taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant being laughed out of the court room, but we're talking about those situations where the case goes before "The one judge in the world who would hear it".
Just because the judge is willing to hear the case doesn't mean it stands any chance of being successful. That's all irrelevant though - the question is about the WMF protecting admins. If the WMF were to have a policy of protecting admins, what would that policy say?
My thoughts of the language that would appear are as follows:
"By and large, administrators and editors are responsible for all actions on Wikipedia that may involve legal action. Most administrative actions on Wikipedia should not fall under any existing laws. However, should an admin be summoned to a court of law under a suit alledging illegal action as part of an administrative act, the Foundation will assist the admin to the point of asserting that the Foundation controls the content on all sites under their jurisdiction, and that the admin is an appointed delegate of the Foundation and is generally free to carry out those orders as they see fit. This assertion may be made as a "friend of the court" brief, or a statement on behalf of the admin and or their legal counsel. The Foundation may also, at it's discression, take any further action or provide any further assistance. If an action taken by an admin actully violates any laws, then the admin is acting solely within their own judgment and are not representing the Foundation in those actions, and as such, responsible for any legal issues that arrise."
Probably would need to be shortened, but that's the jist of what I would think of. -Cascadia
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0704191643m267ba565y4d8465439acfbee8@mail.gmail.com...
I specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could be taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant being laughed out of the court room, but we're talking about those situations where the case goes before "The one judge in the world who would hear it".
Just because the judge is willing to hear the case doesn't mean it stands any chance of being successful. That's all irrelevant though - the question is about the WMF protecting admins. If the WMF were to have a policy of protecting admins, what would that policy say?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
the problem with that is that the WMF helps itself get not sued by asserting the opposite, that they dont have control over it. Thats what all the earlier talk about section 230 was about. The Foundation is not responsible for the content in most cases, hence it's (untested) common carrier status.
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
My thoughts of the language that would appear are as follows:
"By and large, administrators and editors are responsible for all actions on Wikipedia that may involve legal action. Most administrative actions on Wikipedia should not fall under any existing laws. However, should an admin be summoned to a court of law under a suit alledging illegal action as part of an administrative act, the Foundation will assist the admin to the point of asserting that the Foundation controls the content on all sites under their jurisdiction, and that the admin is an appointed delegate of the Foundation and is generally free to carry out those orders as they see fit. This assertion may be made as a "friend of the court" brief, or a statement on behalf of the admin and or their legal counsel. The Foundation may also, at it's discression, take any further action or provide any further assistance. If an action taken by an admin actully violates any laws, then the admin is acting solely within their own judgment and are not representing the Foundation in those actions, and as such, responsible for any legal issues that arrise."
Probably would need to be shortened, but that's the jist of what I would think of. -Cascadia
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0704191643m267ba565y4d8465439acfbee8@mail.gmail.com...
I specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could be taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant being laughed out of the court room, but we're talking about those situations where the case goes before "The one judge in the world who would hear it".
Just because the judge is willing to hear the case doesn't mean it stands any chance of being successful. That's all irrelevant though - the question is about the WMF protecting admins. If the WMF were to have a policy of protecting admins, what would that policy say?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
the problem with that is that the WMF helps itself get not sued by asserting the opposite, that they dont have control over it. Thats what all the earlier talk about section 230 was about. The Foundation is not responsible for the content in most cases, hence it's (untested) common carrier status.
Yep. Because of the unusual arrangements for content production, Wikimedia Foundation really doesn't want to become a test case for S230.
"By and large, administrators and editors are responsible for all actions on Wikipedia that may involve legal action. Most administrative actions on Wikipedia should not fall under any existing laws. However, should an admin be summoned to a court of law under a suit alledging illegal action as part of an administrative act, the Foundation will assist the admin to the point of asserting that the Foundation controls the content on all sites under their jurisdiction, and that the admin is an appointed delegate of the Foundation and is generally free to carry out those orders as they see fit. This assertion may be made as a "friend of the court" brief, or a statement on behalf of the admin and or their legal counsel. The Foundation may also, at it's discression, take any further action or provide any further assistance. If an action taken by an admin actully violates any laws, then the admin is acting solely within their own judgment and are not representing the Foundation in those actions, and as such, responsible for any legal issues that arrise."
How can the WMF know if the action violates any laws until after the trial, since determining that is the point of the trial? Despite that, I think any court is likely to know who controls what, so I don't see any statement from the foundation being necessary.
On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
My thoughts of the language that would appear are as follows:
"By and large, administrators and editors are responsible for all actions on Wikipedia that may involve legal action. Most administrative actions on Wikipedia should not fall under any existing laws. However, should an admin be summoned to a court of law under a suit alledging illegal action as part of an administrative act, the Foundation will assist the admin to the point of asserting that the Foundation controls the content on all sites under their jurisdiction, and that the admin is an appointed delegate of the Foundation and is generally free to carry out those orders as they see fit.
Oh Boy, it's Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy all over again. Don't go there.
Cascadia wrote:
My thoughts of the language that would appear are as follows:
"By and large, administrators and editors are responsible for all actions on Wikipedia that may involve legal action. Most administrative actions on Wikipedia should not fall under any existing laws. However, should an admin be summoned to a court of law under a suit alledging illegal action as part of an administrative act, the Foundation will assist the admin to the point of asserting that the Foundation controls the content on all sites under their jurisdiction, and that the admin is an appointed delegate of the Foundation and is generally free to carry out those orders as they see fit.
Well,
Administrators are not appointed delegates of the Foundation, and they do not receive any orders.
anthere
This assertion may be made as a "friend of the court" brief, or a statement on behalf of the admin and or their legal counsel. The Foundation may also, at it's discression, take any further action or provide any further assistance. If an action taken by an admin actully violates any laws, then the admin is acting solely within their own judgment and are not representing the Foundation in those actions, and as such, responsible for any legal issues that arrise."
Probably would need to be shortened, but that's the jist of what I would think of. -Cascadia
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0704191643m267ba565y4d8465439acfbee8@mail.gmail.com...
I specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could be taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant being laughed out of the court room, but we're talking about those situations where the case goes before "The one judge in the world who would hear it".
Just because the judge is willing to hear the case doesn't mean it stands any chance of being successful. That's all irrelevant though - the question is about the WMF protecting admins. If the WMF were to have a policy of protecting admins, what would that policy say?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/19/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Administrators are not appointed delegates of the Foundation, and they do not receive any orders.
Anthere, a Board member has just overturned a consensus admin decision to keep Daniel Brandt blocked and has given an order not to re-block him. It wasn't couched in terms of an instruction, but that is the effect of it, otherwise he would have been reblocked immediately.
This is just one example of how these unilateral actions create difficulties for everyone -- legal difficulties for the Foundation's position that it is not a publisher, and difficulties for the rest of us in terms of community relations.
Sarah
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Administrators are not appointed delegates of the Foundation, and they do not receive any orders.
Anthere, a Board member has just overturned a consensus admin decision to keep Daniel Brandt blocked and has given an order not to re-block him. It wasn't couched in terms of an instruction, but that is the effect of it, otherwise he would have been reblocked immediately.
How could there be a well-informed concensus? I am still questioning Jimbo to get the full picture.
Mgm
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/19/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Administrators are not appointed delegates of the Foundation, and they do not receive any orders.
Anthere, a Board member has just overturned a consensus admin decision to keep Daniel Brandt blocked and has given an order not to re-block him. It wasn't couched in terms of an instruction, but that is the effect of it, otherwise he would have been reblocked immediately.
I agree. This certainly had an effect. But I nevertheless repeat. Administrators are not appointed delegates of the Foundation (ie, the Foundation does not appoint them. The community does). Admins do not receive orders from the Foundation either. They may receive requests, and they may choose to comply with these requests (which is great :-)). But they do not receive orders in their daily activity of deleting pages, protecting pages, blocking editors, unblocking editors.
A board member has given an order. This is A board member. Only ONE board member amongst others. And the words of ONE board member are not the words of the Foundation, even though the press or many english wikipedians choose to believe so. Actually, there is only one board member whose words may be the Foundation voice, it is me. Not Jimbo.
The Foundation is a LEGAL entity, governed by a board of 7 people. These 7 people work together and make decisions together. The outcome is a Foundation decision. But if ONE board member makes a decision alone, then it is just THIS board member decision. There is no way it should be considered a board decision.
I totally understand that you feel a board member has just overturned a consensus admin decision. But that overturn happened not because Jimbo is on the board, but because Jimbo is our SpecialGuy(tm). Call him leader, benevolent dictator, godking, fearless foundator, as you wish. This is in THIS capacity that he is able to overturn decisions. And the power of doing so does not come from being on the Foundation, but from being our SpecialGuy(tm), to which the community chooses to give a certain authority.
I am pretty sure that if tomorrow, Jimbo quit the board, he will still have this authority. Don't you think ?
This is just one example of how these unilateral actions create difficulties for everyone -- legal difficulties for the Foundation's position that it is not a publisher, and difficulties for the rest of us in terms of community relations.
I agree. There are benefits to this situation though, and there are some drawbacks. It is not all black and white :-(
ant
Sarah
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
I specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could be taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant being laughed out of the court room...
Do not rely on your internal lawyer. Not so long ago the entire text of a Harry Potter novel was posted on Wikipedia several times over, very shortly after the novel was published. Each example once detected was immediately deleted. Had just *one* administrator copied the text of that novel from the deleted pages area of the database and published it elsewhere, he would have been liable for a very serious lawsuit, and possibly worse (copyright infringement can in certain circumstances be a crime). Similarly, had just *one* administrator undeleted the deleted material, both he and possibly Wikipedia could have been exposed (though S230 might exempt Wikimedia Foundation).
On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can't see anything an admin could do within the policies of any Wikimedia project that would put them at risk legally.
In addition to everything a Wikipedia editor could do which would place him or her at risk legally, an administrator could also run a risk by undeleting defamatory material previously hidden, failing to act in a reasonable manner when notified of defamatory material, making defamatory blocking summaries, blocking an editor who attempts to remove defamatory material, protecting articles to prevent attempts to remove defamatory material, placing defamatory material on protected pages, and abusing his administrator privileges to copy defamatory material and publish it elsewhere. And that isn't by any means an exhaustive list.
I'll leave the reader to extrapolate to copyright law and the like.
I can't see anything an admin could do within the policies of any Wikimedia project that would put them at risk legally.
In addition to everything a Wikipedia editor could do which would place him or her at risk legally, an administrator could also run a risk by undeleting defamatory material previously hidden, failing to act in a reasonable manner when notified of defamatory material, making defamatory blocking summaries, blocking an editor who attempts to remove defamatory material, protecting articles to prevent attempts to remove defamatory material, placing defamatory material on protected pages, and abusing his administrator privileges to copy defamatory material and publish it elsewhere. And that isn't by any means an exhaustive list.
I'll leave the reader to extrapolate to copyright law and the like.
I think only about 2 or 3 of the things you list are both illegal and significantly related to admin abilities, and even those would not be within established policy. An admin doing the kind of things you list would be a rogue admin - why would the WMF protect rogue admins?
On 4/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can't see anything an admin could do within the policies of any Wikimedia project that would put them at risk legally.
In addition to everything a Wikipedia editor could do which would place him or her at risk legally, an administrator could also run a risk by undeleting defamatory material previously hidden, failing to act in a reasonable manner when notified of defamatory material, making defamatory blocking summaries, blocking an editor who attempts to remove defamatory material, protecting articles to prevent attempts to remove defamatory material, placing defamatory material on protected pages, and abusing his administrator privileges to copy defamatory material and publish it elsewhere. And that isn't by any means an exhaustive list.
I think only about 2 or 3 of the things you list are both illegal and significantly related to admin abilities, and even those would not be within established policy. An admin doing the kind of things you list would be a rogue admin - why would the WMF protect rogue admins?
There's the inadvertent restoration of previously deleted material; that's a very real problem when deleting and restoring. There's the inadvertent failure to remove defamatory material from an article we're taking admin action in relation to, or the inadvertent protection of a page containing defamation. There are quite a few genuine legal pitfalls.
Sarah
There's the inadvertent failure to remove defamatory material from an article we're taking admin action in relation to
Admins have no legal obligation to remove defamatory material... (the WMF probably does, though.)
On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Admins have no legal obligation to remove defamatory material... (the WMF probably does, though.)
Suppose I get an email saying that such-and-such an article contains a false and defamatory statement about Emily Freeflow, the British tea magnate. I say "sorry I can't be bothered. Go away." Emily Freeflow sues me and takes my reply to the court in the UK. What do I tell the court?
Suppose I get an email saying that such-and-such an article contains a false and defamatory statement about Emily Freeflow, the British tea magnate. I say "sorry I can't be bothered. Go away." Emily Freeflow sues me and takes my reply to the court in the UK. What do I tell the court?
That you didn't make the defamatory statement, nor did you publish it, so you have nothing to do with it.
On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose I get an email saying that such-and-such an article contains a false and defamatory statement about Emily Freeflow, the British tea magnate. I say "sorry I can't be bothered. Go away." Emily Freeflow sues me and takes my reply to the court in the UK. What do I tell the court?
That you didn't make the defamatory statement, nor did you publish it, so you have nothing to do with it.
Not good enough, I'm afraid. In UK law the holder of a sysop account on a Mediwiki installation would have a difficult time of it convincing a court that, having the ability to control the distribution of material on the internet he nevertheless was not a editor within the meaning of clause 1(2) of the Defamation Act, 1996. Clause 1(3) provides some exceptions, a to e, but are of limited applicability. The correct, equitable and prudent thing to do here is to apologise and remove the defamatory material or take steps to ensure that someone else does so promptly.
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can't see anything an admin could do within the policies of any Wikimedia project that would put them at risk legally.
In addition to everything a Wikipedia editor could do which would place him or her at risk legally, an administrator could also run a risk by undeleting defamatory material previously hidden, failing to act in a reasonable manner when notified of defamatory material, making defamatory blocking summaries, blocking an editor who attempts to remove defamatory material, protecting articles to prevent attempts to remove defamatory material, placing defamatory material on protected pages, and abusing his administrator privileges to copy defamatory material and publish it elsewhere. And that isn't by any means an exhaustive list.
I think only about 2 or 3 of the things you list are both illegal and significantly related to admin abilities, and even those would not be within established policy. An admin doing the kind of things you list would be a rogue admin - why would the WMF protect rogue admins?
There's the inadvertent restoration of previously deleted material; that's a very real problem when deleting and restoring. There's the inadvertent failure to remove defamatory material from an article we're taking admin action in relation to, or the inadvertent protection of a page containing defamation. There are quite a few genuine legal pitfalls.
Sarah
Inadvertant means the admin had no intent of restoring defamatory material. They could solve the whole issue by reverting their mistake. If someone wants to sue an admin over a mistake and doesn't take any apologies...
Mgm
On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can't see anything an admin could do within the policies of any Wikimedia project that would put them at risk legally.
In addition to everything a Wikipedia editor could do which would place him or her at risk legally, an administrator could also run a risk by undeleting defamatory material previously hidden, failing to act in a reasonable manner when notified of defamatory material, making defamatory blocking summaries, blocking an editor who attempts to remove defamatory material, protecting articles to prevent attempts to remove defamatory material, placing defamatory material on protected pages, and abusing his administrator privileges to copy defamatory material and publish it elsewhere. And that isn't by any means an exhaustive list.
I'll leave the reader to extrapolate to copyright law and the like.
I think only about 2 or 3 of the things you list are both illegal and significantly related to admin abilities, and even those would not be within established policy. An admin doing the kind of things you list would be a rogue admin - why would the WMF protect rogue admins?
All of them are specifically related to administrator powers (I omitted those that could be done without the sysop bit). None of them are necessarily illegal (that is to say, they are not criminal offenses) but all of them would expose the administrator to civil action.
Certainly I agree that the administrator in question would be a rogue admin, but if not rogues, *whom* would the foundation indemnify?
All of them are specifically related to administrator powers
I don't consider "defamatory block summaries" as specifically related to admin powers, since they are exactly the same as any other defamation. The fact that it's written somewhere only admins can write doesn't really make any difference.
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can't see anything an admin could do within the policies of any Wikimedia project that would put them at risk legally.
In addition to everything a Wikipedia editor could do which would place him or her at risk legally, an administrator could also run a risk by undeleting defamatory material previously hidden, failing to act in a reasonable manner when notified of defamatory material, making defamatory blocking summaries, blocking an editor who attempts to remove defamatory material, protecting articles to prevent attempts to remove defamatory material, placing defamatory material on protected pages, and abusing his administrator privileges to copy defamatory material and publish it elsewhere. And that isn't by any means an exhaustive list.
I'll leave the reader to extrapolate to copyright law and the like.
You pretty much said this yourself. If an admin was to do this, it would be against Wikipedia rules as well as the law and the foundation would have no reason to protect them. If they were to get sued for this, the instigator of the claim would be in the right.
Mgm