[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia editor under UCMJ (Mike G weigh in?)

[Todd Allen]

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 at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.