I don't think I want to be in the position of saying that if an editor knows that another editor has robbed a bank or something that the first editor can't report it. But we need to make a distinction here. In the bank robbing case, the crime is robbing a bank, the goal of the report would be to arrest the bank robber, and the fact that the bank robber's ability to edit would be curtailed is a secondary result. In this case, the alleged crime was improperly editing Wikipedia, the other alleged crime was failing to report improper editing of Wikipedia, and the goal of the report was to curtail the alleged offender's ability to edit Wikipedia. That is the sort of thing that I think we have to close the door on. (Frankly this case always sounded to me like one little leaguer telling another, "If you don't let me play first base I'll tell your big brother you used his glove without asking.")
Once you start saying that editors can threaten each other (or if you prefer, remind each other of obligations that would tend to restrict their editing) if they have a really really good reason, you have opened a dangerous door. Who judges the validity of the reason? It seems from Swatjester's evidence and other comments that Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin's concerns were at least exaggerated. Do we have to ask the JAG every time something like this happens? Suppose a rabbi finds out that someone in his congregation is editing on Sabbath, and threatens to expose him in Synagogue? Are we to say that shaky legal interpretations of criminality by non-lawyers are valid reasons to issue "reminders" but that moral and religious convictions are not? Where does it end?
Yes, there may be times when it is reasonable to notify the authorities about an editor's off-wiki activities. However when dealing with attempts to curtail a person's editing, regardless of the reason, it just shouldn;t be done. Thatcher 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just speaking hypothetically, there are instances were people are barred from performing online activities. Computer criminals, and in some cases pedophiles. Others cases would be if someone were under a restraining or court order against issuing commentary towards or about a certain subject (less common, but it does happen). What if someone were to deduce that User:BlahBlah were a person who was barred from doing such things, and was on Wikipedia? Would it be harassment? Just throwing it out that there are situations that may trump rights to edit here due to legal factors. I'm not taking any sort of position, just saying that such situations may exist where someone literally is not allowed to be on here, and the specific act of reporting to interfere with the editing of Wikipedia may be a good thing. It seems like a very, very deep gray area. Lawrence Cohen 21:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is atrociously weak and fallacious reasoning. Do not feel too proud of yourself and your incredible acuity. It is not necessarily apparent to others, and quite possibly may bear little resemblance to reality.-- Filll ( talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Filll, please take care to be civil. To be clear, I think Thatcher has it wrong. If notifying the authorities about an editor's off-wiki activities is appropriate, it must be done in a way which avoids as much as reasonably possible the impression that it is being done to further a Wikipedia dispute. Not always easy, and this case has shown that there is no guideline or policy about how to give users the opportunity to clear themselves before making such notification. To make Thatcher's parable more appropriate for this case, suppose a rabbi finds out that someone he doesn't know but claims on their user page to be of a particular branch of a strict Jewish sect is editing on Sabbath, and suppose that there is something in the rules for rabbis that they must report such violations, what is the rabbi to do? Does he discreetly ask if his understanding of the sect branch's rules is correct, or does he report the editor on the offchance, despite his humanitarian concern that this could cause immense trouble for the possible miscreant? Ah, these parables are fun. Let those that are without sin stone the cast first. .. dave souza, talk 23:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I seemed uncivil. I do not think that someone should use this kind of leverage to get the upperhand in some sort of dispute on Wikipedia, as User:Thumperward did in the initial ANI filing, or as User:Videmus Omnia did in bringing up this spurious and unfounded claim of harassment, which he subsequently escalated to blackmail, and then to extortion. People just assumed he was correct, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. VO has violated numerous rules on Wikipedia, and made fallacious charges which impugned the good faith and behavior of other editors. Numerous editors have jumped on the bandwagon, themselves demonstrating incredibly bad faith and very poor ratiocination or possibly just gullibility. The claim that Jim did this to further his standing in a content dispute appears to have no basis in fact, and is based on all kinds of unwarranted and unproven gratuitous assertions. The evidence that Thumperward and VO were trying to get even for their perceived losses with Jim62sch are much clearer. Thumperward announced he was doing this to get even for his loss at RfA. VO piled on, making several incorrect and dubious assertions, and it appears that he felt by trying to get Jim62sch in trouble, he would be getting the upperhand in assorted content disputes. Jim62sch did not make a threat. Jim62sch did not make a report. VO threatened and carried out his threat. The evidence seems clear. VO and Thumperward should be censored or worse for their actions to try to use administrative procedures to get the upperhand in wiki disputes or to get "even" with other editors.-- Filll ( talk) 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I want to be in the position of saying that if an editor knows that another editor has robbed a bank or something that the first editor can't report it. But we need to make a distinction here. In the bank robbing case, the crime is robbing a bank, the goal of the report would be to arrest the bank robber, and the fact that the bank robber's ability to edit would be curtailed is a secondary result. In this case, the alleged crime was improperly editing Wikipedia, the other alleged crime was failing to report improper editing of Wikipedia, and the goal of the report was to curtail the alleged offender's ability to edit Wikipedia. That is the sort of thing that I think we have to close the door on. (Frankly this case always sounded to me like one little leaguer telling another, "If you don't let me play first base I'll tell your big brother you used his glove without asking.")
Once you start saying that editors can threaten each other (or if you prefer, remind each other of obligations that would tend to restrict their editing) if they have a really really good reason, you have opened a dangerous door. Who judges the validity of the reason? It seems from Swatjester's evidence and other comments that Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin's concerns were at least exaggerated. Do we have to ask the JAG every time something like this happens? Suppose a rabbi finds out that someone in his congregation is editing on Sabbath, and threatens to expose him in Synagogue? Are we to say that shaky legal interpretations of criminality by non-lawyers are valid reasons to issue "reminders" but that moral and religious convictions are not? Where does it end?
Yes, there may be times when it is reasonable to notify the authorities about an editor's off-wiki activities. However when dealing with attempts to curtail a person's editing, regardless of the reason, it just shouldn;t be done. Thatcher 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just speaking hypothetically, there are instances were people are barred from performing online activities. Computer criminals, and in some cases pedophiles. Others cases would be if someone were under a restraining or court order against issuing commentary towards or about a certain subject (less common, but it does happen). What if someone were to deduce that User:BlahBlah were a person who was barred from doing such things, and was on Wikipedia? Would it be harassment? Just throwing it out that there are situations that may trump rights to edit here due to legal factors. I'm not taking any sort of position, just saying that such situations may exist where someone literally is not allowed to be on here, and the specific act of reporting to interfere with the editing of Wikipedia may be a good thing. It seems like a very, very deep gray area. Lawrence Cohen 21:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is atrociously weak and fallacious reasoning. Do not feel too proud of yourself and your incredible acuity. It is not necessarily apparent to others, and quite possibly may bear little resemblance to reality.-- Filll ( talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Filll, please take care to be civil. To be clear, I think Thatcher has it wrong. If notifying the authorities about an editor's off-wiki activities is appropriate, it must be done in a way which avoids as much as reasonably possible the impression that it is being done to further a Wikipedia dispute. Not always easy, and this case has shown that there is no guideline or policy about how to give users the opportunity to clear themselves before making such notification. To make Thatcher's parable more appropriate for this case, suppose a rabbi finds out that someone he doesn't know but claims on their user page to be of a particular branch of a strict Jewish sect is editing on Sabbath, and suppose that there is something in the rules for rabbis that they must report such violations, what is the rabbi to do? Does he discreetly ask if his understanding of the sect branch's rules is correct, or does he report the editor on the offchance, despite his humanitarian concern that this could cause immense trouble for the possible miscreant? Ah, these parables are fun. Let those that are without sin stone the cast first. .. dave souza, talk 23:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I seemed uncivil. I do not think that someone should use this kind of leverage to get the upperhand in some sort of dispute on Wikipedia, as User:Thumperward did in the initial ANI filing, or as User:Videmus Omnia did in bringing up this spurious and unfounded claim of harassment, which he subsequently escalated to blackmail, and then to extortion. People just assumed he was correct, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. VO has violated numerous rules on Wikipedia, and made fallacious charges which impugned the good faith and behavior of other editors. Numerous editors have jumped on the bandwagon, themselves demonstrating incredibly bad faith and very poor ratiocination or possibly just gullibility. The claim that Jim did this to further his standing in a content dispute appears to have no basis in fact, and is based on all kinds of unwarranted and unproven gratuitous assertions. The evidence that Thumperward and VO were trying to get even for their perceived losses with Jim62sch are much clearer. Thumperward announced he was doing this to get even for his loss at RfA. VO piled on, making several incorrect and dubious assertions, and it appears that he felt by trying to get Jim62sch in trouble, he would be getting the upperhand in assorted content disputes. Jim62sch did not make a threat. Jim62sch did not make a report. VO threatened and carried out his threat. The evidence seems clear. VO and Thumperward should be censored or worse for their actions to try to use administrative procedures to get the upperhand in wiki disputes or to get "even" with other editors.-- Filll ( talk) 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)