User:Int21h/Review

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?

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


 * User:Int21h (User talk:Int21h) ([ logs])
 * verified sockpuppeteer
 * created 28 May 2007 (registered as another May 2006 but since lost access)
 * 11,000 edits


 * User:DeltaQuad (User talk:DeltaQuad) ([ logs])
 * a WP:CheckUser
 * created ?
 * 23,000 edits
 * sockpuppet/alt: User:MWOAP
 * WP:RfA January 2010: draw
 * WP:RfA August 2010: no
 * WP:RfA May 2011: yes
 * "You have been blocked based on CheckUser evidence that you are clearly abusing multiple accounts."


 * User:Hersfold (User talk:Hersfold) ([ logs])
 * a Arbitration Committee member, Bureaucrat
 * created 20 December 2006
 * 33,000 edits
 * WP:RfA June 2007: no
 * WP:RfA September 2007: no
 * WP:RfA March 2008: yes
 * ArbCom election November 2009: yes 351/453/192
 * appointed to one year terms expiring 31 December 2010
 * left April 2010?
 * WP:RfB July 2011: yes
 * ArbCom election December 2011: yes 347/246/136
 * two-year term (expiring 31 December 2014?)
 * "The community based methods mentioned on the BASC page would be those described in your block message, specifically the template or the Unblock Ticket Request System at http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/ ."


 * User:Cla68 (User talk:Cla68) ([ logs])
 * first blocked by "get a life" User:Durova in October 2007
 * blocked by User:Beeblebrox on 27 February 2013 "please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team"
 * unblocked by User:Kevin 3 March 2013
 * left message on my talk page 4 March 2013‎
 * blocked by User:Timotheus Canens on 4 March 2013 "do not unblock without the permission of the arbitration committee"


 * 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
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 ..."