[Wikilegal-l] Civil/Criminal law on Wikipedia (was: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban)

Sun Jan 18 05:00:45 UTC 2004

On Saturday 17 January 2004 08:34 pm, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Sascha Noyes wrote on WikiEN-l:
> >There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial.
>
> Yeah so? Everything we do here is covered under contract/civil law, thus
> mediation and arbitration is perfectly fine. If somebody breaks our rules,
> they break the contract we have with them. We cannot imprison anybody, nor
> levy fines - all we can do is consider our contract with a certain person
> broken, and not allow them further access to editing our website.
>
> Criminal law does not apply unless they break a real law (such as libel or
> giving a serious  threat of physical harm). Then we call the cops and let
> the real criminal justice system take over.
>
> >If certain laws of a society are broken, then the state will
> >prosecute a case.
>
> But we are not a society, we are a community of people who hang out at a
> website with a particular goal in mind.

> >It is not primarily a dispute between him and me. Or for that matter
> >all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is in violation of
> >one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks.
>
> Rules and policies are not laws. No reason to set-up sham/mock courts and
> confuse the whole distinction.

I did not equate the legal system with wikipedia processes, I merely suggested 
it as an analogy for better understanding how wikipedia conflict resolution 
processes might look. This seems to have failed, but that is OK. Wikilegal is 
the wrong forum for this, as I used the legal system as an *analogy* (so I am 
cross-posting this message to wiki-en). 

That said, let's get back to the issue. MNH has repeatedly made personal 
attacks in direct contravention of wikipedia policy. From [[wikipedia:No 
personal attacks]], the first sentence is "No personal attacks on the 
Wikipedia, period." and "Unlike the other rules, which are community 
conventions enforced only by our mutual agreement, this one may also be 
implemented in extreme cases as policy". My question is: Is MNH such an 
extreme case? I submit that it is, as documented on 
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox

If the body that is to decide whether or not his personal attacks are extreme 
wants more proof, then I shall supply that. But I also suggest that the above 
documented personal attacks are indeed sufficiently extreme (in volume and in 
tone). Other people have suggested that somehow MNH's personal attacks are 
actually tolerable because he "just" made them against persons such as Adam 
Carr and RK. I think that this is faulty logic, it doesn't matter who you 
make personal attacks against. I shall quote from the policy again: "No 
personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period."

I had a look at earlier bans, and found this ([[User:Khranus/ban]]): "In 
response to Kosebamse's complaint about "ramblings, contempt, insults, 
hostility", etc. -- the owner of this website user:Jimbo Wales, asks that you 
contact him via e-mail."

I level those same complaints against MNH (except for "ramblings", which I 
don't believe to be sufficient to warrant such action). Now that Jimbo (very 
understandably) doesn't want to be the person that enforces wikipedia rules 
and policies anymore, who will? 

Best,
Sascha Noyes
-- 
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from 
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc