Legal threats and ritual self-abasement, Rights - don't talk to me about rights Options Rating

[Mathsci]

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.

[One]

I don't understand the allegation of conflict of interest. A conflict of interest typically exists (or can be seen to exist) when someone in authority takes, or might be tempted to take, one action rather than another based on an inappropriate external factor such as a source of income or a personal stake in the outcome of the dispute. For example, my real-world legal work could give rise to a conflict of interest if I intervened as a Wikipedia administrator to win a content dispute on an article on one of my clients, or decided an arbitration case in a way that I knew would generate legal business for a friend of mine. I don't see how the issue of conflict of interest is germane to the question of whether someone I have never interacted with should be blocked or unblocked.

You would have a COI if your job requires you to represent the people, because then it's quite possible that your interests lie with the party that is taking legal action. Perhaps you overlooked that possibility?

In the same sense that a bookseller might have a conflict of interest because some parties buy (or discourage buying) books such as encyclopedias. Unless one ArbCom party was actually related to a party in a real-world case, or with or opposed to a client's interest, there's no sane way that it presents a conflict. I don't even believe that NYB litigates defamation. The fact that someone retains a lawyer doesn't benefit someone else just because they're also a lawyer (in an entirely different field of law).

[CharlotteWebb]

Imagine you bought some bad meat at a supermarket, took it to the manager and said, "You know, someone could sue you if they ate this and got ill," and you were promptly frogmarched out of the store, and not let back in until you said the magic words, "I'm really sorry! I didn't mean it!" :-)

True, but if I was the manager in this scenario it would be in my best interest to prevent the litigious customer from buying more of the same meat they claimed was bad enough to sue me for.

Yes if the meat was in fact bad I'd look for a different supplier (for all the good it would do me—I can vouch for the USDA stamp not really meaning much).

Somehow, they perceive the law as evil, ignoring the fact that without it Wikipedia could not exist.

Some laws are evil, that much goes without saying. But this sounds interesting, Guido. Which laws do you believe Wikipedia could not exist without?

You would have a COI if your job requires you to represent the people, because then it's quite possible that your interests lie with the party that is taking legal action. Perhaps you overlooked that possibility?

If you're suggesting that he might take a case in the real world, and represent a client who is suing Wikipedia/WMF... well I think Brad would be a fool to do that. I know if I was a lawyer I wouldn't put myself in that position no matter how badly I needed the money.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Tue 14th April 2009, 4:17pm

[Guido den Broeder]

There is a difference between having a COI and acting on it, another thing that is often misunderstood. If he would do that, he would be justifiedly blocked for the duration, and probably worse.

But if he somehow has sworn to uphold the law (I don't know if that's the case) then that by itself would constitute a COI regarding such matters, regardless of lack of personal involvement.

The laws that Wikipedia needs to exist are, for instance, contract laws. Without those, licenses like the GFDL would be meaningless.

[thekohser]

I just got my official ArbCom e-mail that walks me through the steps of a ban-turnover. It sounds complicated and taxing! Lots of onus on me to prove this and promise that. Ugh!

Greg

[CharlotteWebb]

The laws that Wikipedia needs to exist are, for instance, contract laws. Without those, licenses like the GFDL would be meaningless.

One could argue that the GFDL is not a necessary condition for a free encyclopedia. A lot of people could care less whether they retain copyright on their edits or whether and how publishers must attribute them.

I know if the premise of editing was instead "you release all your contributions into the public domain" I'd still participate, and I wouldn't feel any different about it.

However the thought of a USA without copyright law—or alternatively Laos with freedom of speech (however you prefer to think of it)—can be quite intriguing. But you can't have it both ways, can you?

I just got my official ArbCom e-mail that walks me through the steps of a ban-turnover. It sounds complicated and taxing!

Like, worse than the IRS? All I can say is adjust your withholdings and good luck.

[Coren]

about "legalish posturing" &etc. once Roger Davies and Kirill mentioned the "legal threat" angle. If that was his concern all along then why was he waffling dishonestly up to that point?

No, I was being snarky which, in retrospect, was an error. You'd be surprised how much self-control it takes to not simply go foaming-at-the-mouth-batshit-insane dealing with the amount of crap that is routinely sent to ArbCom every day.

In that particular case, the silly legal threat combined with a poor mood pushed me over the sarcasm line -- something I usually try to keep out of public communication for the obvious reasons.

-- Coren

[Luís Henrique]

Which laws do you believe Wikipedia could not exist without?

As Wikipedia is a machine to circumvent copyright laws, it would be useless if there weren't copyright laws.

Luís Henrique

[Sarcasticidealist]

As Wikipedia is a machine to circumvent copyright laws, it would be useless if there weren't copyright laws.

I don't think that's true - the most useful thing about Wikipedia is its centralization and organization of information, not its release of it under a free license.

[LessHorrid vanU]

I just got my official ArbCom e-mail that walks me through the steps of a ban-turnover. It sounds complicated and taxing! Lots of onus on me to prove this and promise that. Ugh!

Greg

*innocent* Well, just post it up here and let's see if everyone can help you fill it in...

[EricBarbour]

Slim, have you ever contacted a BLP victim who tried to contact the Foundation? Do you even live in the real world?

[Guido den Broeder]

The laws that Wikipedia needs to exist are, for instance, contract laws. Without those, licenses like the GFDL would be meaningless.

One could argue that the GFDL is not a necessary condition for a free encyclopedia. A lot of people could care less whether they retain copyright on their edits or whether and how publishers must attribute them.

Ah, we go from one misunderstanding to the next. Wikipedia editors do not gain any copyrights or attribution rights by editing. The GFDL is there to protect Wikipedia's rights, and those of its sources, not those of its individual users.

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Tue 14th April 2009, 9:41pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

Ah, we go from one misunderstanding to the next. Wikipedia editors do not gain any copyrights or attribution rights by editing.

That's plainly false; Wikipedia editors gain a technical (if in many cases effectively unenforceable) copyright over everything they write as a function of having created it. The view that they don't gain any attribution rights appears to me to be defensible (given the mess that is the GFDL as it applies to wikis), but that's a bit of an eyebrow-raiser too.

The WMF gains neither copyright nor attribution rights by virtue of Wikipedia contributors' GFDL release. It does gain the right to publish and to redistribute the content over which the individual contributors hold the copyright.

[Guido den Broeder]

Wikipedia editors gain a technical (if in many cases effectively unenforceable) copyright over everything they write as a function of having created it.

The copyright is of Wikipedia, the project. Individual WP users are merely collaborators to the project and gain only those rights to their work that Wikipedia explicitly grants them. Note btw that the position of employee does give them other rights unrelated to copyright or attribution.

The WMF gains neither copyright nor attribution rights by virtue of Wikipedia contributors' GFDL release. It does gain the right to publish and to redistribute the content over which the individual contributors hold the copyright.

The WMF has no rights to the content at all, other than the rights of any reader, since it has no employer or ownership relation to Wikipedia, the project.

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Tue 14th April 2009, 10:19pm

[Hell Freezes Over]

[The WMF has no rights to the content at all, other than the rights of any reader, since it has no employer or ownership relation to Wikipedia, the project.

Does Wikipedia the project have any kind of separate legal existence from the Wikimedia Foundation?

[Milton Roe]

Hell, instead of automatically being re-adminned why don't you submit yourself to a Request for Adminship and live by the consensus of the community?

The obvious answer is "because she knows she'll lose". If she had any intention of doing any such thing it'd be less stressful for everyone concerned for her to simply skip the drama and refuse the bit outright.

Now - I'm not necessarily saying she shouldn't be an admin. She does appear to have changed some; and we can't know if that change will or won't be permanent unless she does in fact become an admin. A failed RFA would be every bit as much due to the entirely broken RFA process as due to SV in particular.

Which would be fine, as that would be very educational to the people who need educating. As well as entertaining for the rest, who already know how broken it is.

[One]

Does Wikipedia the project have any kind of separate legal existence from the Wikimedia Foundation?

I think he's using "Wikipedia, the project" as a shorthand for the undisentangleable joint authorship of almost every article.

[Guido den Broeder]

Not quite. There is no per article set of authors. The project as a whole is both author and publisher of every page.

[Jon Awbrey]

I just got my official ArbCom e-mail that walks me through the steps of a ban-turnover. It sounds complicated and taxing! Lots of onus on me to prove this and promise that. Ugh!

Greg

Tips for the Do It Yourselfer —

When it comes to self-abasement, the following considerations are very important:

1. Be sure that abasement has an adequate drainage field under the entire area.
2. Be sure to plug the rod-holes left by the concrete pouring with industrial strength polypropylene caulk.

These handy hints will assure you and your family many good years of undampened spirits in the enjoyment of your self-abasement, whether you finish it with Chinese Drywall, she-e-eet-rock, or any other form of gypsum board.

Ja Ja

[Sarcasticidealist]

The copyright is of Wikipedia, the project. Individual WP users are merely collaborators to the project and gain only those rights to their work that Wikipedia explicitly grants them.

What's your source for this?