Impressive bungling Options

[privatemusings]

(this is split from the broader thread discussing 'no legal threats' etc. - hope that's cool....)

Prologue. An interesting new version of the No legal threats policy is emerging.

Act I. Alastair Haines made a clear legal threat and was unsurprisingly blocked indefinitely for daring to defend his reputation. Much hilarity ensued as various well-meaning, and otherwise, bystanders, piled on and in the end it was agreed that Alastair would be unblocked if he retracted the threat -- of course it wasn't sufficient for him to do so in his own words, he had to kowtow to the cabal and recite their own formula, made up ad hoc of course, that "I withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future". We note of course that the NLT policy doesn't require people to make an advance declaration abjuring their rights, that was just added to complete the humiliation. Alastair seems to have then done the obvious thing of going to make a real-life legal threat, which is what he ought to have done in the first place.

Act II. SkyWriter did his best to keep Alastair unblocked, perhaps under the misapprehension that Wikipedia needs or values expert editors. Coren then decides to block Skywriter on the grounds that he was somehow associated with Alastairs real-life legal threat. It is "suggested" that he recite a similar formula "I do not intend to take any legal action against Wikipedia or any editors or persons associated with it. Accordingly, I unequivocally withdraw any statement that could have been construed as a threat to that effect." SkyWriter, obviously with a good sense of humour, offers up the ludicrous parody "I never conceived of taking legal action against Wikipedia or anyone else on the planet, and unequivocally state that I know of no statement to that effect. If any is ever shown to me, I'll be happy to withdraw it." Meanwhile Coren goes off on holiday and no-one else has the sense, or the intestinal fortitude, to fix the mistake.

Act IV. Coren returns from hols, unblocks SkyWriter, apologizing for wrongly identifying him as the source of the email that got him blocked. It's still not clear who wrote it. Alastair Haines remains blocked.

This was quite a bungle!

It's a little below the radar in some ways at the mo - but what we have here is rather reminiscent of the !! broo ha ha - if you read Skywriter's talk page you'll see that there was a phantom letter which it seems coren and daniel incorrectly identified as coming from skywriter (I think because it bore some resemblance to a post on wiki - perhaps written in english in a similar way ;-) - coren slapped the indef. ban on skywriter, who seems to be a rather calm and pleasant chap, and managed to remain so throughout some rather vague and kafkaesque discussions.

Having made the bungle, and popped off for easter, Coren returns, realises that she / he's been a boob, and unblocks Skywriter.....

lessons learned? we'll see if Alistair gets unblocked soon too (I've shared a few drinks with Alistair, sydney stylee).

The broader (more important) point here is that really by any standard this is spectacular incompetence on the part of an 'arbitrator' (an 'oopsie' indef. block of a substantially valued user) - personally speaking I think the culture at wiki should be far more critical of such bungles (albeit with the milk of human kindness thrown in).

[Mathsci]

Since posting this, Cailil has made a statement on WP that Alastair's publishers had submitted an OTRS ticket, confirmed by an email from Alastair. Looking through my wp email, which I don't do very often (except when I'm registering here!), I found Alastair had also sent me an email on April 9th. So I can confirm Cailil's statement. None of this has been hidden on wikipedia, it's just that it's a quite complicated situation. I hope it can somehow be resolved, if that's possible.

[Casliber]

Well PM, this will make wiki-drinkies interesting with you, me, Alastair and whoever else turns up. Ample beers of the belgian variety should lubricate the neurons nicely for critical thought and novel appraoches
Cas

[privatemusings]

Well PM, this will make wiki-drinkies interesting with you, me, Alastair and whoever else turns up. Ample beers of the belgian variety should lubricate the neurons nicely for critical thought and novel appraoches
Cas

well I've taken the steps you suggested so far, Cas
(boring 'this is just a joke' statement for any tin-foilers out there)
(less boring 'or is it?' caveat)

there are several aspects to this situation that are really totally unacceptable, and hopefully they'll get resolved before too long. The 'no legal threats' policy is misunderstood and misapplied far too much in my book, and maybe there's a good opportunity here for some positive change and accountability..... who knows....

[Mathsci]

I see you've asked ArbCom to look at this.

This seems to be a grey area between OTRS and wikipedia, and ArbCom in particular.

Daniel, lthe famous Giano fan, acted as intermediary - the OTRS ticket was only revealed at the time of Theresa Knott's unblock of Alastair, curious timing.

At another time a fringe scientist (can I say crackpot here?) had complained about an anodyne BLP on their blog and apparently by OTRS. Out of the blue Daniel and another admin suddenly started editing the BLP without mentioning the ticket. I put the article up for deletion and, during the process, Daniel eventually came clean about the OTRS ticket.

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Wed 15th April 2009, 6:47am

[privatemusings]

well now arbcom have both an email and an on-wiki request, I feel certain this will be resolved to the satisfaction of all, probably within minutes (or should that read months... I dunno.....)

This post has been edited by privatemusings: Wed 15th April 2009, 7:10am

[EricBarbour]

Alastair seems to have a talent for attracting wiki-lawyering.
Not to mention the blubbering and whinging of others.

RFA from last year
"Evidence" ha ha ha

Just another hard-drive-wasting dispute. Don't read it.

As usual, if Wikipedia was really interested in attracting well-qualified academics, Alastair
would be near the top of the list. Along with people like Peter Damian and Moulton.
Meaning that, most likely, Alastair will eventually find himself permanently blocked as a major
"disruption". For knowing things, and for having the temerity to fight with Israel-POV
wiki-cranks like Lisa Liel.


This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 15th April 2009, 6:30pm

[privatemusings]

so this rumbles on, I've asked Coren to explain his rationale in blocking someone who explicitly disavowed legal action on the wiki a few days after someone else sent OTRS an email, and it seems to simultaneously be being discussed by arbcom, and not be an arbcom matter at all.

I've distracted myself from getting annoyed at the incompetence on display by playing with gigantic boobs - perhaps this has distracted others too.. I dunno.

[Milton Roe]

there are several aspects to this situation that are really totally unacceptable, and hopefully they'll get resolved before too long. The 'no legal threats' policy is misunderstood and misapplied far too much in my book, and maybe there's a good opportunity here for some positive change and accountability..... who knows....

Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved. For example, a user might assert another editor's comments are "defamatory" because they are unaware of certain policies (such as harassment, personal attacks, incivility, etc.) and require assistance in dealing with such comments. While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked.

This policy, which itself is a considerable expansion of previous policies, is still not followed as written.

[LessHorrid vanU]

There certainly is a misunderstanding with WP:NLT, the nutshell makes clear (in part);

If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked.

If an editor says, 'Okay I will not use legal language in my on-Wiki posting to effect content disputes' but has their agent contact the office regarding the same issue and using warnings of possible legal consequences if actions are not taken to their clients satisfaction, then they are still liable to be dealt with under the policy. It does not allow an editor to remain editing as they have withdrawn the publicly viewable threat, while the threat is being maintained at other venues.

[Milton Roe]

There certainly is a misunderstanding with WP:NLT, the nutshell makes clear (in part);

If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked.

If an editor says, 'Okay I will not use legal language in my on-Wiki posting to effect content disputes' but has their agent contact the office regarding the same issue and using warnings of possible legal consequences if actions are not taken to their clients satisfaction, then they are still liable to be dealt with under the policy. It does not allow an editor to remain editing as they have withdrawn the publicly viewable threat, while the threat is being maintained at other venues.

A verbal legal "threat" has about as much credibility as an opossum's hiss. How can you fall for it?

Considering what it costs to mount a credible legal challenge, such threats (unless they come from very rich people) amount to somebody saying "If you don't do what I want, I'll shoot my own big toe off!"

To which the only answer is: "You go, girl."

The depth of dumbassery in WP policy is astounding. Just astounding.

[privatemusings]

rumbling on - the previously indef. blocked (oopsie) user Skywriter has now made a statement.

maybe one day the wiki will have an arbitration process in which just one of the arb.s actually takes some responsibility for tidying a mess - after all, hell freezes over, right ;-)

This post has been edited by privatemusings: Fri 17th April 2009, 4:59am

[LessHorrid vanU]

There certainly is a misunderstanding with WP:NLT, the nutshell makes clear (in part);

If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked.

If an editor says, 'Okay I will not use legal language in my on-Wiki posting to effect content disputes' but has their agent contact the office regarding the same issue and using warnings of possible legal consequences if actions are not taken to their clients satisfaction, then they are still liable to be dealt with under the policy. It does not allow an editor to remain editing as they have withdrawn the publicly viewable threat, while the threat is being maintained at other venues.

A verbal legal "threat" has about as much credibility as an opossum's hiss. How can you fall for it?

Considering what it costs to mount a credible legal challenge, such threats (unless they come from very rich people) amount to somebody saying "If you don't do what I want, I'll shoot my own big toe off!"

To which the only answer is: "You go, girl."

The depth of dumbassery in WP policy is astounding. Just astounding.

If a verbal "legal threat" deters an editor from acting otherwise in accordance to the rules pertaining, then it is a device that needs removing from the place - notwithstanding its lack of credibility.

People will still whistle, loudly, when they pass a graveyard on a dark windy night...

[Milton Roe]

There certainly is a misunderstanding with WP:NLT, the nutshell makes clear (in part);

If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked.

If an editor says, 'Okay I will not use legal language in my on-Wiki posting to effect content disputes' but has their agent contact the office regarding the same issue and using warnings of possible legal consequences if actions are not taken to their clients satisfaction, then they are still liable to be dealt with under the policy. It does not allow an editor to remain editing as they have withdrawn the publicly viewable threat, while the threat is being maintained at other venues.

A verbal legal "threat" has about as much credibility as an opossum's hiss. How can you fall for it?

Considering what it costs to mount a credible legal challenge, such threats (unless they come from very rich people) amount to somebody saying "If you don't do what I want, I'll shoot my own big toe off!"

To which the only answer is: "You go, girl."

The depth of dumbassery in WP policy is astounding. Just astounding.

If a verbal "legal threat" deters an editor from acting otherwise in accordance to the rules pertaining, then it is a device that needs removing from the place - notwithstanding its lack of credibility.

People will still whistle, loudly, when they pass a graveyard on a dark windy night...

I don't. That's what education is for-- to get rid of superstition. And here WP has lost the opportunity to educate (as usual-- ). A fearsomely posturing 'possum may look like a giant rat on steroids, but is less likely to bite you than any wild creature its size. Its mouth is cleaner than your cat's and it won't have rabies like that cute raccoon (a far more dangeous animal) might. It won't attack you if you leave it alone, or destroy your property. So if an opossum gives you a fearsome display of teeth, take the oportunity to discuss with the children, and laugh. It's just as capable of rolling over and playing dead. The same is true of legalistic blowhard people on the nets. They aren't the dangerous ones.

I know such lessons may not sink in the first time, but that's no reason to give up. The reaction WP gives to legal threats, which amounts to running around in panic ("Officer, officer, there's a hissing possum in my back yard!!!"), is not only not helpful, but is counterproductive. It saps time and money you need to be spending on the actually dangerous stuff.



[Edit-- Its hard not to be reminded of the trillion bucks that the US spent on Dick Cheney's mad fear that Saddam Hussein was working on "suitcase nuclear weapons" for sale to terrorists. The likelihood of which was nil, as any expert could have told them (they didn't ask). For the same money we could have gone a long way toward fixing the US healthcare delivery system. Which costs how many lives per year? Powned again by irrational fears! Just STOP! ]

[Mathsci]

Coren has just unblocked Alastair