User:Filll/material

Behavior Comparison
User:Jim62sch

(1) Actions: Private off-wiki query email

(2) Stated Reason: None given at the time. Four months later, Jim62sch stated that Jim62sch was cautioning VO, and Jim62sch's understanding of government regulations is that government employees are required to report computer abuse.

This is part of Jim62sch's job function and he must answer questions, some while attached to a polygraph, about his knowledge of government computer abuse and if Jim62sch lies the consequences can be severe. Jim62sch also stated that he was ill and his judgement was affected by his illness and medication (see previous evidence I presented here).

(3) Evidence of clear threat: No

Jim62sch said this was not a threat. I do not read it as a threat. Mike Godwin does not suggest it is a threat:.

(4) Result: No subsequent report or complaint

User:Orangemarlin

(1) Actions: Announce his understanding of UCMJ

(2) Stated Reason: None given, but possibly trying to be informative

(3) Evidence of clear threat: No.

Orangemarlin stated several times he would go out of his way to avoid learning more information and so avoid any requirement to report anything.; numerous other examples available.

(4) Result: No subsequent report or complaint

Chris Cunningham/User:Thumperward

(1) Actions: Complain to AN/I

(2) Stated Reason: revenge for failed RfA

(3) Evidence of clear threat: No

(4) Result: AN/I complaint made

User:Videmus Omnia

(1) Actions: Several, including:
 * Bring RfAr complaint
 * charge Jim62sch with making threats
 * suggest Jim62sch committed the felony known as blackmail
 * allude to Jim62sch committing the felony known as extortion
 * release Jim62sch's private personal information in public after Jim62sch had explicitly asked him not to

(2) Stated Reason: Desire to get Jim62sch blocked

(3) Evidence of clear threat: Yes. Threatened to file RfAr and did Threatened to reveal Jim62sch's personal information  and did

(4) Result: RfAr complaint and administrative action, as well as the  violation of Jim62sch's privacy

Wikipedia is not totally independent
It is a fantasy to think that Wikipedia is not subject to influence or control by outside entities. I have encountered this incredible bit of self-delusion over and over in the course of discussing this issue on these pages. There appears to be a widespread irrational belief or desperate hope that Wikipedia is independent of laws and ethics and does not have to respond to extra-wiki requirements or accommodate outside obligations. This has been shown to be incorrect over and over.

I observe many who want to imagine that Wikipedia and its editors can be immune from legal and ethical responsibilities, and that Wikipedia rules will always take precedence over all other requirements in the "real world". This is a fantasy and highly irresponsible at best. Pursuing this line of reasoning will end in disaster for Wikipedia; I guarantee it.

In instance after instance, such as;


 * abiding by legal restrictions of China or France,


 * surrendering of IP addresses in response to legal subpoenas associated with lawsuits of companies that feel they were negatively portrayed by editors on Wikipedia


 * dealing with terrorism and suicide threats and child pornography problems


 * removal of well-sourced BLP material to avoid legal challenges

and so on, Wikipedia has had to respond to the outside world.

Wikipedia has had to make accommodations, over and over, in response to what the rules and principles of the world are. We might not like it, but this is reality.

I think that this would play extremely poorly in a true legal

setting, or in the court of public opinion. I urge anyone with

common sense to step back from these outrageous claims and

hysterical shrieking of people who seem to be incapable of

thinking about the consequences of their positions, and develop

and implement sensible, practical policies for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is integrated into a framework of national and

international laws. Wikipedia has to appear ethical and

reasonable, and not in the business of flouting laws, or

discouraging editors to shirk or ignore their legal and ethical

duties. The firestorms that erupted from editors lying about

their credentials or from the Siegenthaler controversy are

nothing compared to what might result here.

Lets not follow some of the extremely ill-advised paths

advocated by some of the more strident editors on these pages

and try to think ahead of potential consequences. How might this

play in the media? What sort of precedent will this set? What

sort of message do you want to send? Think carefully before you

accept some claim that Wikipedia rules are more important than

all other rules, regulations and laws of companies and

governments. Do you really think that the governments of the

world will take kindly to that claim? Do you think the public

and media response to this kind of declaration will be positive? The consequences could be severe.