User:Int21h/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: User:Int21h/Government
Germans climbing the Reichstag circa 1919, but not dressed as Spiderman per WP:NCR. Such activity is "strongly discouraged and will result in a definite block from editing Wikipedia."

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?

Notes[edit]

  • WP:BLANK v. old WP:BlANK: "Early in Wikipedia's history, it was common to leave pages blank if the title was valid, but the contents were vandalism or nonsense." v. "However, it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. ... For blanking of inappropriate content in other editors' userspace, see the section on fixing other users' pages in the userpage guideline. Occasionally, completed deletion discussions (or other discussions) may be blanked for reasons of privacy or courtesy to individuals. For policy on this, see the section on courtesy blanking in Wikipedia's deletion policy."
  • Interesting quotes:
    • ... The IP is in the HTTP header and it is modified. ... What I didn't understand is that the useragent is completely spoofed. (DeltaQuad)

Peeps[edit]

Wikipedia is a very small world. There seems to be a small set of users involved.

  • User:Kevin (User talk:Kevin) (logs)
    • blocked/unblocked by User:DESiegel on 20 January 2010 "Disruptive editing: Continues deletions agaisnt policy, without consensus support, after havign been repeatedly asked, waned and previously blocked" "turnign the matter over to the ArbCom's descrition"
    • re-admined by User:MBisanz on 6 April 2012
    • unblocked User:Cla68 3 March 2013
    • blocked by User:X! on 4 March 2013
      • User:Timotheus Canens: "Kevin is temporarily desysopped in accordance with Level II procedures for removing administrative tools. The unblock of Cla68 (talk · contribs) is to be reversed until Cla68's appeal is addressed by the Arbitration Committee."

TOU[edit]

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:

  1. An expression of intent to injure or punish another.
  2. An indication of imminent danger.
  3. A person or object that is regarded as a danger; a menace.

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":

  1. To cause to suffer for crime or misconduct, to administer disciplinary action.
  2. To cause great harm to. (a punishing blow)
  3. To dumb down severely or to the point of uselessness or near-uselessness.

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":

  1. (obsolete) Ability to harm; someone's dominion or power to harm or penalise. See In one's danger, below.
  2. (obsolete) Liability.
  3. (obsolete) Difficulty; sparingness.
  4. (obsolete) Coyness; disdainful behavior.
  5. (obsolete) A place where one is in the hands of the enemy.
  6. Exposure to liable harm.
  7. An instance or cause of liable harm.
  8. Mischief.

For "injure":

  1. To wound or cause physical harm to a living creature.
  2. To damage or impair.
  3. To do injustice to.

And finally for "harm":

  1. Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune.
  2. That which causes injury, damage, or loss.

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 ...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Int21h/Review&oldid=546634777"