This is a collecting point for information regarding a review of ... well, everything relating to administrative actions on the projects and my surprise permablock.
What threat do Administrators pose to the projects? What is their history? Their creation myth? Does their creation myth still make sense? How much is left to discretion? What are the edge cases in policy? How common are these edge cases? Are the edge cases exploitable? Would an exploit be distinguishable from intended use? Would existence of an exploit v. intended use rely on motives or other unknowables/unprovables? What are the procedural rules regarding standards of proof, burdens of proof, etc.? How many adverse actions have been taken on policy that changed, is ambiguous, secondary/suggestive policy, etc.?
Wikipedia is subject to the law of California by choice of law in "terms of use" contract provisions. The state Constitution gives each citizen an " inalienable right" (LOL) to pursue and obtain " privacy". Where does this California liberalism meet Wikipedia? The CheckUser?
Wikipedia is a very small world. There seems to be a small set of users involved.
The Terms of Use give quite a wide berth in interpretation for such a little word as "threat". The question begs: what exactly did the Trustees mean by forbidding threats? Is an expression of intent to to administer disciplinary action to another forbidden? Is threats of punishment or injury forbidden? Does injury pertain to physical, emotional, or other injury? Can one claim to intend on punishing someone for an administrative action and cause injury and harm? If there is a "common sense" interpretation, then in a much wider sense, does Wikipedia take place in an American, English, German or other context for such questions? (The policy covers all projects.)
The Terms do not give guidance as to definitions or interpretations of such broad words. We start with the word "threats". It is assumed to be the noun, as it seems "engaging in" would verb-ize nouns. Wiktionary says thus of a threat:
Again, as no interpretation is given, one can assume that any definition of "threat" meets the qualification. Thus, one can say
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... punish another ...
We turn now to the word "punish":
Again, as no interpretation is given, one can assume that any definition of "punish" meets the qualification. Thus, one can say
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... to administer disciplinary action [to] another ...
Alternatively, one can choose to expand on the word "injure", "danger", and "harm".
For "danger":
For "injure":
And finally for "harm":
In only one reading, which can be reached from only a few explicit word replacements, does this concern physical action, through a definition of choice through the words threat and injure (injury also through harm, which is also through danger):
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... wound or cause physical harm to a [living creature or] another ...
But through an alternative reading of injure could also mean:
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... do injustice to another ...
But just as easily could also mean:
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... cause great misfortune to another ...
This is a collecting point for information regarding a review of ... well, everything relating to administrative actions on the projects and my surprise permablock.
What threat do Administrators pose to the projects? What is their history? Their creation myth? Does their creation myth still make sense? How much is left to discretion? What are the edge cases in policy? How common are these edge cases? Are the edge cases exploitable? Would an exploit be distinguishable from intended use? Would existence of an exploit v. intended use rely on motives or other unknowables/unprovables? What are the procedural rules regarding standards of proof, burdens of proof, etc.? How many adverse actions have been taken on policy that changed, is ambiguous, secondary/suggestive policy, etc.?
Wikipedia is subject to the law of California by choice of law in "terms of use" contract provisions. The state Constitution gives each citizen an " inalienable right" (LOL) to pursue and obtain " privacy". Where does this California liberalism meet Wikipedia? The CheckUser?
Wikipedia is a very small world. There seems to be a small set of users involved.
The Terms of Use give quite a wide berth in interpretation for such a little word as "threat". The question begs: what exactly did the Trustees mean by forbidding threats? Is an expression of intent to to administer disciplinary action to another forbidden? Is threats of punishment or injury forbidden? Does injury pertain to physical, emotional, or other injury? Can one claim to intend on punishing someone for an administrative action and cause injury and harm? If there is a "common sense" interpretation, then in a much wider sense, does Wikipedia take place in an American, English, German or other context for such questions? (The policy covers all projects.)
The Terms do not give guidance as to definitions or interpretations of such broad words. We start with the word "threats". It is assumed to be the noun, as it seems "engaging in" would verb-ize nouns. Wiktionary says thus of a threat:
Again, as no interpretation is given, one can assume that any definition of "threat" meets the qualification. Thus, one can say
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... punish another ...
We turn now to the word "punish":
Again, as no interpretation is given, one can assume that any definition of "punish" meets the qualification. Thus, one can say
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... to administer disciplinary action [to] another ...
Alternatively, one can choose to expand on the word "injure", "danger", and "harm".
For "danger":
For "injure":
And finally for "harm":
In only one reading, which can be reached from only a few explicit word replacements, does this concern physical action, through a definition of choice through the words threat and injure (injury also through harm, which is also through danger):
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... wound or cause physical harm to a [living creature or] another ...
But through an alternative reading of injure could also mean:
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... do injustice to another ...
But just as easily could also mean:
... you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include ... Engaging in ... an expression of intent to ... cause great misfortune to another ...