8 ms·

Wikimedia France just published an article (in English) with more details: http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-wikipedia-article-5493 http:

by ErrantX 14y ago

Wikimedia France just published an article (in English) with more details: http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-wikipedia-article-5493 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-wik... What's distressing about this is that they found a French Wikipedia sysop who they could identify in real life and "summoned" him to their offices (I presume from the language it was a summons he couldn't refuse). Then forced him to delete it there and then, despite no prior connection to the article, or else be detained. Whatever the rights and wrongs of them wanting to delete the article, or whether it had super-secret information, there is only really one response to what they did; What. The. Fuck. The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could be in trouble. If we feel like it".

gsnedders 14y ago
The precedent seems to be more along the lines of, "If you are an administrator of a website hosting (what we claim to be) illegal content, you are obliged to delete it upon being informed".
- ErrantX 14y ago
  Well, perhaps. Although I'd suggest that dragging him into their offices and threatening to not let him leave till he obliges is a step beyond that :)
- thwest 14y ago
  Illegal status of material should be adjudicated by a court of law, not by a civil servant in a covert agency.
misiti3780 14y ago
" It receives hundreds of requests for deletions of articles every year, and cooperates with requests when those are clearly motivated." It only receives hundreds? Something is wrong with sentence.
- ErrantX 14y ago
  As I read the sentence, it means hundreds of requests... from public authorities. I think that's an overestimate. As a volunteer on the Wikimedia email ticket system (where most such requests, and indeed I believe this example as well, go to) I've only seen a few such requests from public bodies. EDIT: actually, it seems this did go through the (employed) WMF legal team, rather than the volunteer support service. Sorry :)
krebby 14y ago
The funny thing here is that deleting an article on Wikipedia is more akin to hiding its contents from the public (i.e. non-sysop users) than it is to deletion. No history or content is actually lost, and as we're all aware nothing ever truly disappears on the internet. Ironically, if they wanted sensitive information gone for good, they would have to use the "oversight" feature, which requires the Foundation's blessing.
- ErrantX 14y ago
  > they would have to use the "oversight" feature, which requires the Foundation's blessing. Oversighting is a community process too; most Wikis elect or appoint a small group of editors to have access to the tool.
joyeuse6701 14y ago
It's a 'do the ends justify the means' issue. I'm kind of shocked that the above the fold comments here no one seems to take into account that France is engaged in conflict. As a result, if you have an easy to access well written article, which is exactly what wikis espouse to be that has detailed relevant as deemed by the french gov't military information, It is their decision to determine what was once public to be classified information. As much as I am for supporting rights of individuals and keeping systems in balance, I'm not so much for the establishment of principle to prove a point and set a precedent (which is not how the french law system works by the way) so much as I am for the utilitarian exercising of power when lives are on the line. How selfish must one be to cling to a few pages on principle when others could die for it. "The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could be in trouble. If we feel like it". The other way goes that: 'If I have time sensitive information due to the changing landscape of warfare, I could get soldiers and civilians killed if I feel like it' I sadly would trust the gov't on this decision than an individual.
- justin66 14y ago
  I don't know anything about the secrets involved but it is generally the case with these things that once the horse has left the barn, closing the barn door isn't very effective. Steps taken after the fact have a lot more to do a desire on the part of the people who failed to keep secrets secure to be seen as doing something, to punish, or to escape embarrassment.
- thwest 14y ago
  I disagree simply because I feel the obligation for a completely transparent government outweighs the need to wage war. How selfish must one be to insist we wage these conflicts where the deaths of many are a certainty.
  - joyeuse6701 14y ago
    The problem with transparency is that there are those who would exploit it. We could all have our passwords publicly available (that would be an interesting experiment), but I'll guess that you wouldn't be willing to post yours here. So I could understand the french gov't not willing to divulge this information at the moment either. If history has been any lesson, conflict will come, regardless of whether you want it or not.
tripzilch 14y ago
> (I presume from the language it was a summons he couldn't refuse) From the article (thanks for linking it btw, it has slightly more info than the English text in the OP): "This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices." So I'm guessing he complied with the summons because he didn't know what it was about and therefore saw no reason not to. There's some comments below the article you linked, criticizing the sysop for not refusing to delete the article, calling it an abuse of his powers. Well. I don't know who this sysop is, but if he's just an average Jacques, never having had to deal with strong-arming by intelligence agencies, I can totally understand why he chose that course of action. After all, you can always undelete an article, and right then, at that moment, things must have seemed pretty scary to him. From the (English part of the) OP, it states that he tried to talk them out of it, that despite his role as a sysop it was not his decision to make, point them to the Wikimedia Foundation, etc. Who knows what they threatened him with (probably jailtime), I can't blame him for not risking that, or at least not risking it until he gets a clearer picture. He probably thought, let's get myself out of this first, and let the inevitable publicity shitstorm sort things out later. And indeed, apparently the article is back up.
- davidgerard 14y ago
  He's on the board of Wikimedia France, so dealing with the government is part of what they do. (WMFR has no control over Wikipedia content or servers.)
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Though this incident rather puts the lie to that.
    - jleader 14y ago
      "WMFR has no control over Wikipedia servers, and no more control over Wikipedia content than any other volunteer editor." Fixed that for the GP.
onemorepassword 14y ago
As far as I'm concerned, that's not the distressing part. Once the authorities concluded a crime was being committed by organisation X, they found someone involved with that organisation and forced them to stop. They clearly correctly identified that person as a) being a member, and b) having the means to delete the article. That's not a new precedent, that's perfectly normal. The only real issue is the ridiculous attempt to make the information "disappear" in the first place.
- PeterisP 14y ago
  If a crime was involved, it could be understandable - but what crime is there? This is public, non-secret information hosted outside of France by a non-French organization. If a Boeing sysadming goes to France on vacation, can they ask him to delete stuff out of Boeing servers?

by ErrantX 14y ago

gsnedders 14y ago

The precedent seems to be more along the lines of, "If you are an administrator of a website hosting (what we claim to be) illegal content, you are obliged to delete it upon being informed".

ErrantX 14y ago
Well, perhaps. Although I'd suggest that dragging him into their offices and threatening to not let him leave till he obliges is a step beyond that :)
thwest 14y ago
Illegal status of material should be adjudicated by a court of law, not by a civil servant in a covert agency.

misiti3780 14y ago

" It receives hundreds of requests for deletions of articles every year, and cooperates with requests when those are clearly motivated." It only receives hundreds? Something is wrong with sentence.

ErrantX 14y ago
As I read the sentence, it means hundreds of requests... from public authorities. I think that's an overestimate. As a volunteer on the Wikimedia email ticket system (where most such requests, and indeed I believe this example as well, go to) I've only seen a few such requests from public bodies. EDIT: actually, it seems this did go through the (employed) WMF legal team, rather than the volunteer support service. Sorry :)

krebby 14y ago

The funny thing here is that deleting an article on Wikipedia is more akin to hiding its contents from the public (i.e. non-sysop users) than it is to deletion. No history or content is actually lost, and as we're all aware nothing ever truly disappears on the internet. Ironically, if they wanted sensitive information gone for good, they would have to use the "oversight" feature, which requires the Foundation's blessing.

ErrantX 14y ago
> they would have to use the "oversight" feature, which requires the Foundation's blessing. Oversighting is a community process too; most Wikis elect or appoint a small group of editors to have access to the tool.

joyeuse6701 14y ago

It's a 'do the ends justify the means' issue. I'm kind of shocked that the above the fold comments here no one seems to take into account that France is engaged in conflict. As a result, if you have an easy to access well written article, which is exactly what wikis espouse to be that has detailed relevant as deemed by the french gov't military information, It is their decision to determine what was once public to be classified information. As much as I am for supporting rights of individuals and keeping systems in balance, I'm not so much for the establishment of principle to prove a point and set a precedent (which is not how the french law system works by the way) so much as I am for the utilitarian exercising of power when lives are on the line. How selfish must one be to cling to a few pages on principle when others could die for it. "The precedent they are setting is something like "if you are involved in a website where someone else does something we consider problematic, you could be in trouble. If we feel like it". The other way goes that: 'If I have time sensitive information due to the changing landscape of warfare, I could get soldiers and civilians killed if I feel like it' I sadly would trust the gov't on this decision than an individual.

justin66 14y ago
I don't know anything about the secrets involved but it is generally the case with these things that once the horse has left the barn, closing the barn door isn't very effective. Steps taken after the fact have a lot more to do a desire on the part of the people who failed to keep secrets secure to be seen as doing something, to punish, or to escape embarrassment.
thwest 14y ago
I disagree simply because I feel the obligation for a completely transparent government outweighs the need to wage war. How selfish must one be to insist we wage these conflicts where the deaths of many are a certainty.
- joyeuse6701 14y ago
  The problem with transparency is that there are those who would exploit it. We could all have our passwords publicly available (that would be an interesting experiment), but I'll guess that you wouldn't be willing to post yours here. So I could understand the french gov't not willing to divulge this information at the moment either. If history has been any lesson, conflict will come, regardless of whether you want it or not.

tripzilch 14y ago

> (I presume from the language it was a summons he couldn't refuse) From the article (thanks for linking it btw, it has slightly more info than the English text in the OP): "This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices." So I'm guessing he complied with the summons because he didn't know what it was about and therefore saw no reason not to. There's some comments below the article you linked, criticizing the sysop for not refusing to delete the article, calling it an abuse of his powers. Well. I don't know who this sysop is, but if he's just an average Jacques, never having had to deal with strong-arming by intelligence agencies, I can totally understand why he chose that course of action. After all, you can always undelete an article, and right then, at that moment, things must have seemed pretty scary to him. From the (English part of the) OP, it states that he tried to talk them out of it, that despite his role as a sysop it was not his decision to make, point them to the Wikimedia Foundation, etc. Who knows what they threatened him with (probably jailtime), I can't blame him for not risking that, or at least not risking it until he gets a clearer picture. He probably thought, let's get myself out of this first, and let the inevitable publicity shitstorm sort things out later. And indeed, apparently the article is back up.

davidgerard 14y ago
He's on the board of Wikimedia France, so dealing with the government is part of what they do. (WMFR has no control over Wikipedia content or servers.)
- philwelch 14y ago
  Though this incident rather puts the lie to that.
  - jleader 14y ago
    "WMFR has no control over Wikipedia servers, and no more control over Wikipedia content than any other volunteer editor." Fixed that for the GP.

onemorepassword 14y ago

As far as I'm concerned, that's not the distressing part. Once the authorities concluded a crime was being committed by organisation X, they found someone involved with that organisation and forced them to stop. They clearly correctly identified that person as a) being a member, and b) having the means to delete the article. That's not a new precedent, that's perfectly normal. The only real issue is the ridiculous attempt to make the information "disappear" in the first place.

PeterisP 14y ago
If a crime was involved, it could be understandable - but what crime is there? This is public, non-secret information hosted outside of France by a non-French organization. If a Boeing sysadming goes to France on vacation, can they ask him to delete stuff out of Boeing servers?