On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 4/19/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)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 20/04/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- geni

On 4/19/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> wrote: Yes, thank you.

On 4/20/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 20/04/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> wrote: 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.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a4359dff0704191643m267ba565y4d8465439acfbee8@mail.gmail.com...

On 4/20/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yep. Because of the unusual arrangements for content production, Wikimedia Foundation really doesn't want to become a test case for S230.

On 4/20/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> wrote: Oh Boy, it's Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy all over again. Don't go there.

On 4/19/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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

Slim Virgin wrote: 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 ? I agree. There are benefits to this situation though, and there are some drawbacks. It is not all black and white :-( ant

On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

On 4/19/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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?

On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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?

On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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