http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting_people.27s_em...
This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
Nathan
Now, I don't know the specifics of whether this particular instance of someone editing is illegal, but I'm making a general statement on the issue:
This is not a matter for enwiki ArbCom to decide. For the /last/ time it is not their job to deal with outside legal issues. If someone is doing something that is against the law and someone feels compelled to report them, this should have no bearing on on-wiki activities. If someone is breaking the law to edit and someone else reports them, that is their right within whatever jurisdiction they live in. Banning the reporting editor serves no purpose short of instigating drama. As highly Wikipedia thinks itself, it isn't above the law, and "Anyone can edit" hasn't been passed into any constitution as far as I know.
We punish editors for obeying the law? Wow, standards /have/ dropped.
Chad.
On Jan 2, 2008 1:18 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting_people.27s_em...
This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 2, 2008 10:45 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
We punish editors for obeying the law? Wow, standards /have/ dropped.
If someone is under a legal obligation to do something, then they should do it. We are not even contemplating otherwise. However, there are correct ways of handling such an obligation.
-Matt
I'm not saying they handled it properly (which they didn't, it's always best to privately contact an editor first...), but I am saying that anyone thinking of punishing these editors /solely/ because they choose to report a (suspected?) illegality occurring on Wikipedia isn't necessarily acting right either.
If it came down to reporting a crime or losing my editing rights, I would always choose the former.
Chad.
On Jan 2, 2008 2:00 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 10:45 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
We punish editors for obeying the law? Wow, standards /have/ dropped.
If someone is under a legal obligation to do something, then they should do it. We are not even contemplating otherwise. However, there are correct ways of handling such an obligation.
-Matt
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If I'm not mistaken, the initial warning was sent to via e-mail - not on-wiki. Also for clarificiation, only OrangeMarlin is claiming to be a member of the US military (inactive reserve). Jim is apparently in the treasury department, which in my mind indicates a separate type of obligation. I'm also not sure that the point that both editors are admins is true or relevant.
The issues are:
1) Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the world).
2) Can editors with an affirmative legal obligation warn other editors of this obligation and their exposure to it off-wiki? Is there a difference between warning them on or off Wikipedia?
3) Are the legal claims being made by OM, Jim62sch and others valid (with respect to their obligation, and the legality of editing by military IPs)?
Nathan
- Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law
when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the world).
1.1) Does some random person editing under a pseudonym telling us so constitute "being aware"?
- Can editors with an affirmative legal obligation warn other editors
of this obligation and their exposure to it off-wiki? Is there a difference between warning them on or off Wikipedia?
If it's off-wiki, I can't see how it's anything to do with us.
- Are the legal claims being made by OM, Jim62sch and others valid
(with respect to their obligation, and the legality of editing by military IPs)?
Would need to ask a military legal expert, I guess.
On Jan 2, 2008 11:28 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> > 2) Can editors with an affirmative legal obligation warn other editors > of this obligation and their exposure to it off-wiki? Is there a > difference between warning them on or off Wikipedia? If it's off-wiki, I can't see how it's anything to do with us.
If an editor sends an email with the intent to manipulate the on-wiki actions of another editor, then it certainly is relevant. To give a very simplified example, if MrTroll sends me a death threat via wikimail, I'd have no qualm with seeing him blocked.
This scenario is less obvious, but at least some people see it as operating on the same continuum.
-Robert Rohde
- Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law
when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the world).
In China, editing WP is illegal. Should we also ban edits done by registered users via proxy-servers if it is known that the user is in PR China at the time?
I think if we really start doing this we are just going too far.
Cheers, Yaroslav Blanter
I agree that we shouldn't. Nor should we ban .mil addresses either. However, actively encouraging editors to break the law in their area isn't the best way to go about it. I think those that edit Wikipedia when they shouldn't (be it government censorship, job contract, military law) are taking an active risk on their /own/ part (and most of the time, they're probably aware that they're doing something they legally shouldn't). If someone wants to report someone for breaking the law, that's their right, and Wikipedia has no role to play in it.
Chad H.
On Jan 2, 2008 3:15 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
- Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law
when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the world).
In China, editing WP is illegal. Should we also ban edits done by registered users via proxy-servers if it is known that the user is in PR China at the time?
I think if we really start doing this we are just going too far.
Cheers, Yaroslav Blanter
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 02/01/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that we shouldn't. Nor should we ban .mil addresses either. However, actively encouraging editors to break the law in their area isn't the best way to go about it. I think those that edit Wikipedia when they shouldn't (be it government censorship, job contract, military law) are taking an active risk on their /own/ part (and most of the time, they're probably aware that they're doing something they legally shouldn't). If someone wants to report someone for breaking the law, that's their right, and Wikipedia has no role to play in it.
Is anyone actively encouraging breaking the law? If so, that could well be illegal in itself (inciting criminal activity, or something - the terminology probably depends on the details of the offence). I don't know if non-military people can be found guilty of inciting military people to break military law, but it wouldn't surprise me.
In this situation, no. However, it's been brought up in the past in regards to China. For quite some time, we essentially told them how to get around the firewall and edit (Advice to TOR users in China or somesuch page). While it's not saying "go break the law and edit," it *is* saying "If you want to go break the law, here's how."
Chad
On Jan 2, 2008 3:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/01/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that we shouldn't. Nor should we ban .mil addresses either. However, actively encouraging editors to break the law in their area isn't the best way to go about it. I think those that edit Wikipedia when they shouldn't (be it government censorship, job contract, military law) are taking an active risk on their /own/ part (and most of the time, they're probably aware that they're doing something they legally shouldn't). If someone wants to report someone for breaking the law, that's their right, and Wikipedia has no role to play in it.
Is anyone actively encouraging breaking the law? If so, that could well be illegal in itself (inciting criminal activity, or something - the terminology probably depends on the details of the offence). I don't know if non-military people can be found guilty of inciting military people to break military law, but it wouldn't surprise me.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think we're getting a little off topic here, and I think its an issue that is important enough that we should stay focused on the issues of key importance. Do we have a legal obligation (probably no, IMHO, but IANAL), is there a policy conflict in this area, is the obligation purported by these editors a fact? I think non-lawyers can probably review the second issue, but one and three require legal assistance in my opinion.
Nathan
Has anyone mentioned what portion of the UCMJ this is under? At least reading it might give us a better idea instead of shooting in the dark.
Chad
On Jan 2, 2008 3:38 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I think we're getting a little off topic here, and I think its an issue that is important enough that we should stay focused on the issues of key importance. Do we have a legal obligation (probably no, IMHO, but IANAL), is there a policy conflict in this area, is the obligation purported by these editors a fact? I think non-lawyers can probably review the second issue, but one and three require legal assistance in my opinion.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
OM quoted it I think to MastCell, its mentioned on OM's talk page (link I provided initially).
On Jan 2, 2008 3:43 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone mentioned what portion of the UCMJ this is under? At least reading it might give us a better idea instead of shooting in the dark.
Chad
On Jan 2, 2008 3:38 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I think we're getting a little off topic here, and I think its an issue that is important enough that we should stay focused on the issues of key importance. Do we have a legal obligation (probably no, IMHO, but IANAL), is there a policy conflict in this area, is the obligation purported by these editors a fact? I think non-lawyers can probably review the second issue, but one and three require legal assistance in my opinion.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, if the portion of the UCMJ he was talking about indeed exists (which I have no doubt, but I'd like to see a "look at article so and so" from /someone/), then it appears that the law has been broken and if OM feels obligated to do so, he may do such. How does Wikipedia have to get involved?
Also, from an outside perspective who hasn't been involved, it appears to me that Theresa is overreacting a bit considering the circumstances. OM appears to be (in very good faith) pointing out a legal issue with a particular editor's editing from a government computer. Fair enough. He warned him and said that he might potentially go to his superiors. Ok, still looks good to me. I fail to see the harassment Theresa is so loudly claiming exists.
Editing Wikipedia is not a right. It is a privilege that can be taken away by the Foundation (and ArbCom, sysops, etc) or your ISP or your employer.
Chad
On Jan 2, 2008 3:53 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
OM quoted it I think to MastCell, its mentioned on OM's talk page (link I provided initially).
On Jan 2, 2008 3:43 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone mentioned what portion of the UCMJ this is under? At least reading it might give us a better idea instead of shooting in the dark.
Chad
On Jan 2, 2008 3:38 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I think we're getting a little off topic here, and I think its an issue that is important enough that we should stay focused on the issues of key importance. Do we have a legal obligation (probably no, IMHO, but IANAL), is there a policy conflict in this area, is the obligation purported by these editors a fact? I think non-lawyers can probably review the second issue, but one and three require legal assistance in my opinion.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the initial warning was sent to via e-mail - not on-wiki. Also for clarificiation, only OrangeMarlin is claiming to be a member of the US military (inactive reserve). Jim is apparently in the treasury department, which in my mind indicates a separate type of obligation. I'm also not sure that the point that both editors are admins is true or relevant.
The issues are:
- Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law
when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the world).
Usually no. Here we are talking about the unauthorized use of computers. There is no suggestion that the manner of their usage was any different from the way a generally well-behaved user would have done so from a home computer. It could be just as "illegal" for an employee in the private sector to use his employer's computers, or for a student using a school's computers.
- Can editors with an affirmative legal obligation warn other editors
of this obligation and their exposure to it off-wiki? Is there a difference between warning them on or off Wikipedia?
How would affirmative obligations square with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military when you find out that two other guys are getting it on. I guess there's always that proud military tradition of "Catch 22". Warning on-wiki is clearly the worse because of the immediate drama that such a warning causes. Off-wiki isn't much better if the accused sees it as an officious threat made without basis. What is he to do then? Apart from bringing the matter online himself, can he ignore the threat? Can he privately tell the accuser to put his threat where the sun don't shine?
- Are the legal claims being made by OM, Jim62sch and others valid
(with respect to their obligation, and the legality of editing by military IPs)?
That's completely beyond us. Our area of competence can only begin from the point in time when someone is on line; if they managed to get connected we can only assume that it was done legally, and that any illegal connection would have been thwarted by the employer's own systems and safeguards. How can the accuser possibly know if offender's base commander has enacted an exception to the rules. Is he about to take on the base commander on the basis that he was not authorized to grant such an exception?
Nathan,
How are all edit from .mil illegal? Each service branch/agency makes their own directives/AUP's.
Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:19 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia editor under UCMJ (Mike G weigh in?)
If I'm not mistaken, the initial warning was sent to via e-mail - not on-wiki. Also for clarificiation, only OrangeMarlin is claiming to be a member of the US military (inactive reserve). Jim is apparently in the treasury department, which in my mind indicates a separate type of obligation. I'm also not sure that the point that both editors are admins is true or relevant.
The issues are:
1) Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the world).
2) Can editors with an affirmative legal obligation warn other editors of this obligation and their exposure to it off-wiki? Is there a difference between warning them on or off Wikipedia?
3) Are the legal claims being made by OM, Jim62sch and others valid (with respect to their obligation, and the legality of editing by military IPs)?
Nathan
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well they aren't necessarily - at the time, it wasn't clear whether this was a component of the UCMJ (which applies to all branches) or a regulation specific to a branch. It has since been explained to me that it is a specific regulation of the Air Force (and the Army, as Durova pointed out) and that the UCMJ requires military personnel to report violations of all lawful orders, which would include general regs of the AF.
Nathan
On Jan 2, 2008 9:06 PM, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan,
How are all edit from .mil illegal? Each service branch/agency makes their own directives/AUP's.
Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:19 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia editor under UCMJ (Mike G weigh in?)
If I'm not mistaken, the initial warning was sent to via e-mail - not on-wiki. Also for clarificiation, only OrangeMarlin is claiming to be a member of the US military (inactive reserve). Jim is apparently in the treasury department, which in my mind indicates a separate type of obligation. I'm also not sure that the point that both editors are admins is true or relevant.
The issues are:
- Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law
when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the world).
- Can editors with an affirmative legal obligation warn other editors
of this obligation and their exposure to it off-wiki? Is there a difference between warning them on or off Wikipedia?
- Are the legal claims being made by OM, Jim62sch and others valid
(with respect to their obligation, and the legality of editing by military IPs)?
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And still and yet, no one has answered what that rule, regulation, or code -might actually be-. This whole point is moot if no such regulation exists. Is it too much to ask those reporting "What rule is being broken, and what rule requires you to report that?" If they're claiming "legal obligation-out of my hands, I have to do this", I think "What rule says so?" is a totally appropriate question, and as far as I can see, has never been pointed out. The UCMJ is available online. Which rule prohibits editing Wikipedia, which rule requires reporting?
On Jan 2, 2008 7:22 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Well they aren't necessarily - at the time, it wasn't clear whether this was a component of the UCMJ (which applies to all branches) or a regulation specific to a branch. It has since been explained to me that it is a specific regulation of the Air Force (and the Army, as Durova pointed out) and that the UCMJ requires military personnel to report violations of all lawful orders, which would include general regs of the AF.
Nathan
On Jan 2, 2008 9:06 PM, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan,
How are all edit from .mil illegal? Each service branch/agency makes their own directives/AUP's.
Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:19 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia editor under UCMJ (Mike G weigh in?)
If I'm not mistaken, the initial warning was sent to via e-mail - not on-wiki. Also for clarificiation, only OrangeMarlin is claiming to be a member of the US military (inactive reserve). Jim is apparently in the treasury department, which in my mind indicates a separate type of obligation. I'm also not sure that the point that both editors are admins is true or relevant.
The issues are:
- Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law
when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the world).
- Can editors with an affirmative legal obligation warn other editors
of this obligation and their exposure to it off-wiki? Is there a difference between warning them on or off Wikipedia?
- Are the legal claims being made by OM, Jim62sch and others valid
(with respect to their obligation, and the legality of editing by military IPs)?
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Chad wrote:
I'm not saying they handled it properly (which they didn't, it's always best to privately contact an editor first...), but I am saying that anyone thinking of punishing these editors /solely/ because they choose to report a (suspected?) illegality occurring on Wikipedia isn't necessarily acting right either.
If it came down to reporting a crime or losing my editing rights, I would always choose the former.
It seems as though you are treating any illegality as a crime. To me there is an important distinction between violating administrative regulations, and serious criminal acts which can do real harm to anybody.
Ec
I don't know if its important to this discussion, but the UCMJ is a class apart from standard criminal and civil law. I imagine they have some class of civil remedies (fines, surrender of wages, etc.) in addition to criminal penalties (as opposed to having a type of legal action that is categorically not criminal), but not being an expert in the UCMJ at all 'crime' or 'violation' are probably the most accurate terms.
Nathan
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 10:45 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
We punish editors for obeying the law? Wow, standards /have/ dropped.
If someone is under a legal obligation to do something, then they should do it. We are not even contemplating otherwise. However, there are correct ways of handling such an obligation.
It should also not be viewed as a choice whether to "punish" people or not. The Arbitration Committee is tasked with resolving disputes to keep the English Wikipedia functioning and serving its mission, not with some sort of meting out of justice.
It's quite possible that certain people's real-world legal obligations are simply incompatible with how we'd like English-Wikipedia admins to act, in which case it's best for everyone involved that they follow their real-world legal obligations but not be an English-Wikipedia admin in order to avoid this conflict.
-Mark
On Jan 2, 2008 3:32 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 10:45 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
We punish editors for obeying the law? Wow, standards /have/ dropped.
If someone is under a legal obligation to do something, then they should do it. We are not even contemplating otherwise. However, there are correct ways of handling such an obligation.
It should also not be viewed as a choice whether to "punish" people or not. The Arbitration Committee is tasked with resolving disputes to keep the English Wikipedia functioning and serving its mission, not with some sort of meting out of justice.
It's quite possible that certain people's real-world legal obligations are simply incompatible with how we'd like English-Wikipedia admins to act, in which case it's best for everyone involved that they follow their real-world legal obligations but not be an English-Wikipedia admin in order to avoid this conflict.
-Mark
I'm not sure I see the incompatibility in this case between being an
"admin" and being a member of the military. But perhaps there is between having check-user ability and being a member of the military...
On Jan 2, 2008 10:18 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting_people.27s_em...
This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
In case anyone else on Foundation-l found this summary unclear, it appears that what is being argued is the following:
Two (or more) individuals who are both enwiki admins and members of the US military assert that under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) they have an affirmative obligation to report violations of the UCMJ by other members of the military.
They assert that the actions of another editor, who is believed to be with the Air Force, violate the UCMJ, both because of personal use of government computers and other unspecified (at least in what I read) infractions.
By raising the issue of these alleged infractions, and their possible obligation to report them, these admins have been seen by others as intimidating/harrassing this user on the basis of off-wiki circumstances.
This case is already moving into arbitration on an expidited basis, largely because of the perception of harassment.
So the legal question is whether the UCMJ does in fact lead to these sorts of conflicts of interest and real world consequences.
If it does, the practical question is whether this conflict of interest is so severe that actions should be taken to limit its impact. For example, a draconian approach would be to disallow all editing from .mil addresses (which is the possibility Nathan suggests above).
-Robert Rohde
So the legal question is whether the UCMJ does in fact lead to these sorts of conflicts of interest and real world consequences.
That's a good question for those under UCMJ jurisdiction. It doesn't make any difference to the rest of us. I very much doubt the UCMJ requires anyone to take any particular action on Wikipedia, so there is no conflict with Wikipedia's policies.
So, when did we give Jimsch62 access to Checkuser, so he could know that the other editor was editing from a military computer? Seems to me that absent evidence to prove where the editor is connecting from (eg: no proof that any law is being broken) the only purpose of the threat would be to harass & intimidate the other editor.
IMHO, Versageek
Wednesday, January 2, 2008, 1:18:32 PM, Nathan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting_people.27s_em...
N> This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including N> in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work N> for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to N> report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because N> that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is N> true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
N> Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
N> Nathan
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org