"Erik Moeller" wrote
I think we should all be willing to try out such experiments more frequently, rather than dividing our world into friends and enemies.
Magnanimity is a good card to play against malice, when in a position of strength. I think there is little doubt that Brandt means harm to Wikipedia's reputation, and intends to do such harm by placing adverse media stories. This will happen whether or not he is a Wikipedia editor.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 4/19/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Erik Moeller" wrote
I think we should all be willing to try out such experiments more frequently, rather than dividing our world into friends and enemies.
Magnanimity is a good card to play against malice, when in a position of strength. I think there is little doubt that Brandt means harm to Wikipedia's reputation, and intends to do such harm by placing adverse media stories. This will happen whether or not he is a Wikipedia editor.
Charles
Of course, 3 days ago this was posted on WR (the hivemind was taken down a few days earlier)
:"I also took down the IRC logs. As I move toward litigation, it has become clearer to me that Jimbo and the Foundation are responsible for the behavior of their editors, because they control the structure of Wikipedia. There is no point in confusing the judge and jury."
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8226&view=findpost... http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8226
I don't know if the litigation intent had something to do with the unblock....
So to be clear, this is not a sanctioned OFFICE/WMF action and an admin in Good Faith can re-block?
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
So to be clear, this is not a sanctioned OFFICE/WMF action and an admin in Good Faith can re-block?
This is my understanding. An administrator acting in good faith can re-block if he perceives a valid reason within the blocking policy or can otherwise justify his actions by the necessity of protecting Wikipedia or the Foundation from harm.
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Info Control wrote:
So to be clear, this is not a sanctioned OFFICE/WMF action and an admin
in
Good Faith can re-block?
I would not recommend it.
--Jimbo
Are you answering from your position as an admin or something else? If its outside the scope of office/WMF I thought that your administrative voice was no more authority than any other.
If this has some unspoken legal reason for the unblock it ought to be disclosed. Otherwise... Slim's question is important. On what grounds would this be not recommended? Aren't you bound to the community's will/consensus as anyone?
Info Control wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Info Control wrote:
So to be clear, this is not a sanctioned OFFICE/WMF action and an admin
in
Good Faith can re-block?
I would not recommend it.
--Jimbo
Are you answering from your position as an admin or something else?
I am answering as a human being who is trying to act thoughtfully and with respect for everyone. I think that a reblock at this point would be ill-advised.
If its outside the scope of office/WMF I thought that your administrative voice was no more authority than any other.
No, you are mistaken. I have a traditional role under the long standing community rules of English Wikipedia which does not flow from WP:OFFICE (which became a policy when I delegated some traditional powers to the office) nor from the foundation, but from convention within the community.
I am always happy to entertain serious discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of this method, and would support a discussion of how to replace the method.
If you are thinking that it would be better, in terms of power for the community, for me to be stripped of this role, I recommend a re-think. One alternative is for the office to be tasked with this stuff. This would result in a much less community-centric way of handling things.
If this has some unspoken legal reason for the unblock it ought to be disclosed. Otherwise... Slim's question is important. On what grounds would this be not recommended? Aren't you bound to the community's will/consensus as anyone?
I don't recommend it because it is a bad idea.
I am bound to the will of the community, as is (for example) the arbitration committee. And notice that the will of the community is not determined by lynch mobs but by our traditions and standards.
--Jimbo
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: <snip>
Thanks for the thoughtful answers, Jimmy. Maybe it would put this to rest for many if the unspoken questions are asked again/answered by you directly (and as alluded to by Tony, directing us to Brandt's letter):
1. What role does his stated/pending legal threat play in this?
2. Is this being done to try to protect the untested Section 230 coverage?
3. Are you willing to disclose the current "back room" status of your communications with Brandt (if any), for full disclosure, so no one is caught by surprise that may interact there? Are you willing to confirm if such exist so that people know the scale/importance of this, if it's more than just trying to be nice?
Info Control wrote:
- What role does his stated/pending legal threat play in this?
None. I think he has absolutely no legal case at all here.
- Is this being done to try to protect the untested Section 230 coverage?
No.
- Are you willing to disclose the current "back room" status of your
communications with Brandt (if any), for full disclosure, so no one is caught by surprise that may interact there? Are you willing to confirm if such exist so that people know the scale/importance of this, if it's more than just trying to be nice?
I am happy to disclose, and already did in my unblock notice and emails here. I don't consider making public statements and engaging in a public discussion to be "back room" at all.
Brandt and I are talking by email about his status in Wikipedia, both as editor and as biographical subject, and I am attempting to address his various concerns in a way that is both consistent with our policies (NPOV in particular) and respectful of him as a human being.
He seems to be discussing in good faith, and I know that I am discussing in good faith. Whatever disagreements he and I, or he and others, may have, it seems fairly clear to me that he wants only to edit the talk page of his own biography (he has said so), so that he can complain there about various problems he perceives (such is his right).
He would still like the article about him to be completely deleted, but I think he also understands that complete deletion is not likely to happen. So now I am talking to him about specific steps we might take (he and I but also all of us) to make the article better.
I have offered to fly to San Antonio at my personal expense to meet with him and the board of his organization, an offer which he has so far declined, as is his right of course.
I do not approve of his past actions, but I do believe that there is a possibility for peace here. I intend to make the best of it, and I hope that everyone will support me to the best extent that they can. (One way to support me, of course, is to talk about why you think I am wrong and what you think I am doing wrong.)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brandt and I are talking by email about his status in Wikipedia, both as editor and as biographical subject, and I am attempting to address his various concerns in a way that is both consistent with our policies (NPOV in particular) and respectful of him as a human being.
He seems to be discussing in good faith, and I know that I am discussing in good faith. Whatever disagreements he and I, or he and others, may have, it seems fairly clear to me that he wants only to edit the talk page of his own biography (he has said so), so that he can complain there about various problems he perceives (such is his right).
He would still like the article about him to be completely deleted, but I think he also understands that complete deletion is not likely to happen. So now I am talking to him about specific steps we might take (he and I but also all of us) to make the article better.
I have already mentioned a few times that we would benefit from people being able to express themselves about themselves on an article about them. Plainly put there would be an article written in the normally accepted way, and there would be a section where it is clear that it's that person's own opinion about himself. I don't see it as a violation of NPOV because that judgement should apply to the article as a whole. If a person's self-assessment is outrageous, it can't be made clearer than in a person's own words. I'm not suggesting a completely free hand without any rules at all; libellous comments about third persons would most certainly be frowned upon. Having the opportunity to defen themselves in public is likely to significantly reduce the complaints that someone might have about the article on him.
Ec
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Brandt and I are talking by email about his status in Wikipedia, both as editor and as biographical subject, and I am attempting to address his various concerns in a way that is both consistent with our policies (NPOV in particular) and respectful of him as a human being.
So as an editor Brandt should be afforded minimum protection of Civility clauses and NPA. Here's the first attack that needs to be reviewed
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&am...
a fellow Wiki editor cites himself, is self-published, violates NOR, and places highly questionable and potentially damaging libelous information in Brandt's bio (the same cite remains in the Public Information Research entry).
This is not without Arbitration precedent, other editors have been banned for personal attacks that met WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CITE policies.
The sort of incivility we've seen in this case is beyond the pale, and abusive editors need to be held to account through internal regulation -- the alternative is litigation against the Foundation, or changes in Sec. 230 by Congress which is a *real* possibility.
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
So to be clear, this is not a sanctioned OFFICE/WMF action and an admin in Good Faith can re-block? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If it was, he would've said so. Still, good faith isn't enough. You'd need a very good reason -- at least make sure it's something Jimbo didn't consider already.
Mgm
On 4/19/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, 3 days ago this was posted on WR (the hivemind was taken down a few days earlier)
:"I also took down the IRC logs. As I move toward litigation, it has become clearer to me that Jimbo and the Foundation are responsible for the behavior of their editors, because they control the structure of Wikipedia. There is no point in confusing the judge and jury."
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8226&view=findpost... http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8226
I don't know if the litigation intent had something to do with the unblock....
Obviously removing the hivemind page is a good thing, but in the same post he also says he beliefs the Foundation and Jimbo are responsible for admin actions and that he's moving closer to litigation against them. What about "No legal threats"?
Mgm