User talk:Mmyers1976

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with you removing "alleged satanist" from Sammy Davis's page. But what on earth do you mean by alerting his estate? Madness. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Don't threaten people. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. I do understand your position about my talking about alerting his estate. I kind of knew when I posted it that it would naturally be read as a threat, even though I sincerely don't mean it as a threat. I know it sounds like me saying "don't you revert, or I'm gonna call Sammy's estate". It's sometimes hard to express intent though text - there is no tone of voice, etc. to give one clues. I just looked at the LONG back-and-forth discussion about this, and thought deleting it would probably just result in it being reverted - there seem to be some people highly invested in keeping the rumor on his page. I thought that if we can't settle it here, maybe Davis's heirs could definitively settle it, even if their settlemen would be to ask the Wikipedia management to make sure this is not on his article. It borders on libel, and is hardly encyclopedic. If I had an encyclopedia article written about me, and someone added some possibly libelous information in it, I hope someone would alert me so I could set the record straight. It's any wikipedian's choice to revert my edit, and it's Wikipedia management's choice to decide whether or not that exposes them to a libel suit, and it's Davis's heirs' choice to decide if they want to ask that it be permanently deleted, or seek legal relief. In order for Davis's heirs to have that choice, they have to know about it, they have the right, but wikipedians and Wikipedia have the right to know in advance that I would alert his estate, which is why I said I would. Again, I didn't mean it as a threat, but I guess there is no way to say it that wouldn't be taken as one. If the edit is reverted, I will not alert the estate until after I have contacted Wikipedia management, to give them a fair chance to deal with the situation internally.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gareth_E_Kegg"

[edit] June 2008

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Next time you see false information in a Wikipedia article, how about you just remove it rather than make poisonous legal threats? Thank you. Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet's interpretation of WP:NO LEGAL THREATS is overreaching, far enough so to be wrong. I did not threaten to take any legal action. As there was much disagreement over whether or not to include allegations of satanism to the article on Sammy Davis, Jr., after I removed the allegation, I stated my intent, if the allegation appeared again, to share the presence of the allegation with Davis's estate, as perhaps they might wish to have a say in whether or not the allegation remains. I did my best to explain in the talk page that I did not intend this to be a threat. Sharing information with an outside entity and then leaving it to them to decide how to use that information (if at all) is not a legal action, so therefore this does not qualify as a legal threat. As to whether or not it constitutes a threat at all, I did my best to explain I did not intend it as a threat (and intent is required to qualify as a threat). Wikipedia civility policy enjoins editors to "assume good faith", and I explicitly explained I acted in good faith. Therefore, Jaysweet's warning fails to be valid, as my statement did not concern legal action, and must be assumed to be a good faith statement, not a threat. Individual editors should be careful not to broadly interpret Wikipedia policies so as to include situations that do not apply.

Wikipedia does not have a policy prohibiting users fromt deleting warnings on their own talk pages, however there is some agreement that deleting invalid warnings is justified. I will leave Jaysweet's warning and my response up for 30 days, and then delete both.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales (August 2006): "There's a sort of typical pattern where I've seen this happen over and over and over. Somebody, they go to an article and they see something they don't like in it so they blank the article. Right. So somebody warns them, and then they blank again and they get blocked. Right. Then they make a legal threat and they really get blocked. And it's just like a totally bad experience for that person, when in fact, they may have been right in the first place. Or maybe they weren't right. maybe they just didn't like what we wrote about them, but still, we didn't handle it well ... And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmyers1976 (talk • contribs)

Only, that's not what happened here at all. You saw something you didn't like, and you immediately launched into legal banter. You did not first remove the comment in question, or even blank the article. Also, you didn't get blocked for it either, so it's nothing like the scenario in the Jimbo quote.

I'm just saying, if you see an unfounded rumor about someone in a Wikipedia article, if your first reaction is, "I'ma tell his estate on you!", that is destructive to the spirit of collaboration that we need here. You're not in trouble, and if you want to remove this warning I don't have a problem with it. I just wanted to let you know that 1) this was not the most productive course of action, and 2) people take any whiff of a pseudo-legal-threat very seriously. I don't mean to drive you away or make you feel threatened or persecuted. If you feel better removing the warning, go ahead, I don't see a problem with it. Just remember that people are hyper-sensitive about this stuff, and that there are more productive ways to resolve problems like this. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Jaysweet missed the point. My posting the Jimmy Wales quote was not to say that my situation was exactly like the one Wales describes, but to show Wales' attitude toward "legal threats". It was not posted as a direct refutation of anyone's words or actions, but another piece of information for us all to think about that illustrates how the founder of this website feels about legal threats in practice. He does not seem to be a hardliner on the subject at all. He sees getting the information correct as being the ultimate value, not enforcing hard and fast rules on "no legal threats". Also, Jaysweet's facts are in error. The very first thing I did was remove the offending information, before I did anything else. Immediately after that, I posted my rationale. My mistake was thinking that I was being courteous in letting people know that I might alert Davis' estate, so that they would know beforehand. Apparently this is not appreciated, I get the message, so if a similar situation arises in the future, I will not post on Wikipedia my intent to inform the entity of the possibly defamatory information, nor will I post on Wikipedia that I have done so after the fact. I will just go ahead and inform the entity. IMmyers1976 (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You can take this however you like. I would reiterate what I said before that 1) this was not the most productive course of action, and 2) people take any whiff of a pseudo-legal-threat very seriously. Those are just facts about how Wikipedia works, not my decision, so there's nothing for me to misinterpret or "miss the point" about.

Anyway, if you'd like to have the last word, please insert it below. I have made my point, I am sorry you still think I am criticizing you (I'm really not, I'm just telling you the way this website operates), and this will be the last I have to say about it. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a written form of communication is that it is very difficult to tell true intent, and very easy to assign intent incorrectly. I think that is the main issue here. People misunderstood my intent behind saying I would contact Davis' estate as a threat- I can understand why they would have done so, and bear no hard feelings over that. You may have misinterpreted my intent in posting the Wales quote - so I tried to explain my intent just now. Maybe you are also misinterpreting my saying that I will no longer post my intent to notify someone if inaccurate information about them is posted here, and will just inform that person. I say that with no bitterness. I simply think that is the best my to avoid having my intent be misinterpreted as a threat rather than a courtesy. I have no hard feelings toward you or anyone else, and if anyone misinterpreted my intent, that is as much my fault as theirs.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)