10 ms·

> (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 tex

> (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.
    - ErrantX 14y ago
      David means as a legal entity. It's basically the standard refrain for any Wikimedia chapter :) If the chapter, as an entity, tried to "interfere" in one of the Wikis it would go down very badly within the community. There is a certain amount of push and shove that means chapters are extremely careful to be seen only ever as facilitating. But that's a whole rabbit hole of politics beyond the scope of this discussion :D
davidmr 14y ago
> I'm guessing he complied with the summons because he didnt know what it was about and therefor saw no reason not to. I'm not sure if this is a cultural difference between France and the states or if I'm overly paranoid, but if I were to receive a summons of any type by any government agency with more authority than the dept. of motor vehicles, there is precisely nothing that would get me to comply with that summons without talking to my lawyer first.
- ErrantX 14y ago
  Thinking about it tripzilch could well be right about what happened. Speaking for myself; if MI5 (to pick an example) contacted me as a public and relatively high profile UK editor/sysop and asked me to come in and, say, advise them I probably would. I keep forgetting we are reading a lot of translated text here; so "summons" might not be the right word in this context. I perhaps jumped to conclusions given the stuff that happened once he'd attended the meeting :)
  - davidgerard 14y ago
    The translation is being improved by lots of people, and a revised version should be up shortly.
  - blahedo 14y ago
    The word used in the French version is "convoquer", which is the same word used for "draft" in the military sense. I think it has a strong connotation of obligation, i.e. you can't refuse it.
    - emmfr 14y ago
      He was theoretically free during the questionning, and free to not comply with the demand — theoretically. The OP writes that he was threatened to be held in custody (French: "garde à vue"). This is a common trick of the French police: when people are held in custody, they have the right to an attorney and to keep silent, which the police don't like. So the police question "free" people and threaten them to hold them in custody if they don't cooperate obediently. Most people (especially good citizens) are scared of being held in custody, so the trick works quite well: people answer every single question and have no attorney, despite their right (and interest) to do otherwise. In the present case, the charges (had any been pressed — he was there as a free person) would have been akin to terrorism, which means that the custody would have been under anti-terrorism rules: a very unpleasant experience that can last up to 96 hours. So the pressure was very high, despite his being "free".

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.
  - ErrantX 14y ago
    David means as a legal entity. It's basically the standard refrain for any Wikimedia chapter :) If the chapter, as an entity, tried to "interfere" in one of the Wikis it would go down very badly within the community. There is a certain amount of push and shove that means chapters are extremely careful to be seen only ever as facilitating. But that's a whole rabbit hole of politics beyond the scope of this discussion :D

davidmr 14y ago

> I'm guessing he complied with the summons because he didnt know what it was about and therefor saw no reason not to. I'm not sure if this is a cultural difference between France and the states or if I'm overly paranoid, but if I were to receive a summons of any type by any government agency with more authority than the dept. of motor vehicles, there is precisely nothing that would get me to comply with that summons without talking to my lawyer first.

ErrantX 14y ago
Thinking about it tripzilch could well be right about what happened. Speaking for myself; if MI5 (to pick an example) contacted me as a public and relatively high profile UK editor/sysop and asked me to come in and, say, advise them I probably would. I keep forgetting we are reading a lot of translated text here; so "summons" might not be the right word in this context. I perhaps jumped to conclusions given the stuff that happened once he'd attended the meeting :)
- davidgerard 14y ago
  The translation is being improved by lots of people, and a revised version should be up shortly.
- blahedo 14y ago
  The word used in the French version is "convoquer", which is the same word used for "draft" in the military sense. I think it has a strong connotation of obligation, i.e. you can't refuse it.
  - emmfr 14y ago
    He was theoretically free during the questionning, and free to not comply with the demand — theoretically. The OP writes that he was threatened to be held in custody (French: "garde à vue"). This is a common trick of the French police: when people are held in custody, they have the right to an attorney and to keep silent, which the police don't like. So the police question "free" people and threaten them to hold them in custody if they don't cooperate obediently. Most people (especially good citizens) are scared of being held in custody, so the trick works quite well: people answer every single question and have no attorney, despite their right (and interest) to do otherwise. In the present case, the charges (had any been pressed — he was there as a free person) would have been akin to terrorism, which means that the custody would have been under anti-terrorism rules: a very unpleasant experience that can last up to 96 hours. So the pressure was very high, despite his being "free".