Recently I have had a huge problem with Wikipedia. Then I was blocked by an administrator that seems to have been called a pedophile on a tripod site. When I tried to appeal it I couldn't and then on my talk page after giving MY opinion I was then blocked from editing my talk page. Then I created another account which was blocked by the same administrator. Of course on my third account it hasn't been blocked but after a posting on Yahoo! Answers I received a message on my Wikipedia user page saying "An editor has expressed concern that this may be a sock puppet of --------". Then came the thing that really bothered me, under that it said "Please see this question on Yahoo! Answers for relevant evidence". What gives them the right to do this?? Does Wikipedia have no boundaries?

People have different opinions on whether off-wiki activities should be taken into consideration on-wiki.

Let's say someone shows up on the wiki and looks like they might be trolling. Let's say you happen to know about their blog. If, on their blog, they say things like "tee hee hee, look at me, I'm trolling Wikipedia", then I think it's reasonable to take this bit of knowledge into consideration.

As for "what gives them the right".. I'm not sure that's a sensible question.

Welcome to Wikipedia Review. You have discovered an interesting logic that pervades Wikipedia. Wikipedia reserves the right to extend its authority as far and wide as it sees fit; however, it denies the authority of outside entities to extend their authority onto Wikipedia.

If you understand, believe, and recognize the hypocrisy of this logic, you are ready to participate in Wikipedia Review.

If you are not quite ready to join us, then I suggest another three months or so of sockpuppet evasion and back-and-forth editorial warfare on Wikipedia. You'll eventually come back to us.

Since this was your first edit, this was your second and this was your third, I'm not sure the "evil admin conspiracy to stifle me" argument really holds in this particular case.

Where did that come?

In western societies people have the right to do that which is not proscribed. Looking at other sites in which you participate to help form a profile of you, for whatever reason, is not proscribed. In fact, it happens around here all the time.

As well, this thread is mistitled: this is not Wikipedia spreading its authority. This is Wikipedia spreading the places it will get information. Obviously, Wikipedia administrators (as a class) have no authority at Yahoo! Answers, nor did they exercise any there.

If anything, Wikipedia treats itself as too much of a walled garden; it should look at things in their greater context more often. And I'm using "things" in the broadest sense allowed by the dictionary.

Extension of dispute to places outside of Wikipedia is a known problem. I refer to this as when encyclopedias attack. However your post above begs more questions than it answers and I think we would need to know more about the referenced Tripod site and the Yahoo! Answers matter before I would be willing to weigh-in in a more supportive manner.

Stuff like that is called "vandalism" on Wikipedia. And, generally, it gets people blocked quickly. If you keep doing it, chances are good that all your accounts will become blocked quickly, regardless of whether or not anyone connects them, or whether or not the same people view the vandalism.

The only thing you did with the Dawgsnlocust (T-C-L-K-R-D) account was vandalize. The Yahoo Answers post seems to have been deleted, but even without that, a block seems to have been in order. Presumably the Yahoo Answers post gave a clue that you were not just an innocent new editor. Would you care to tell us the names of the other accounts you have used?

I could care less about "vandalism," which as far as I'm concerned is just another form of permissible user-generated content given WP's lack of any TOS agreement. I still don't see anything indicating that Wikipedians came after you off site. Sorry that here you got pretty much beat-up by Wikipedians but given that "you started it" I can't see how you can complain too much. They do come off as a bunch of petty self-righteous pricks, don't they? I'd still be interested if there is more to tell.

Actually, Steve, the Wikipediot clique has set itself up as a wickedly-successful "tag team" of thumbs-uppers and thumbs-downers, who by "reporting" to Yahoo! Answers staff any answers that do not conform to the authorized, pro-Wikipedia party line, have successfully taken over at least the "Wikipedia" category on Yahoo! Answers, through mob censorship. I don't even try to get a word in edgewise over there any more, because it is so fully in their control.

Don't you recall our discussions of the teen Filipino chess player and his crew on Yahoo! Answers?

Wikipedia is overrun by immature amateurs, many of whom exhibit aspects of Cluster B Personality Disorders.

A defining feature of such characters is that they don't recognize or respect personal boundaries.

Punishing contributors for their off-wiki crimes raises the interesting question as to how to link identities across sites. For example, although a WR member can assert any WP username as their own, as far as I know there is no check.. I have often wondered whether some WR users are making "optimistic" claims about their WP identities. As to the wider web: go to www.yourfavouriteadminname.com and decide whether there's the basis for an RFC or RFARB against them ... someone with more time and energy might like to draw up a list.

I think if you want to assert a prominent wikipedian user name as your own the mods ask for verification.

And it's trivial to confirm. All you have to do is make an inconsequential edit on your talk page that includes some code phrase known only to yourself and the Mods.

All wikimedia projects now have a "terms of use" linked from every page. It only addresses the licensing of content though.

Why on earth doesn't the TOS say, "you agree not to vandalize pages, to intentionally add false, misleading or defamatory information, etc"? It's not likely to have much practical effect, but why not say it?

There was a short time during which the US courts were willing to hold that violating the Terms of Service of a website was a criminal offense, although I believe that conviction was recently thrown out....

Created June 15, 2009. I didn't get the memo despite the fact that I've been on to them about it for well over a year. So now I have to say "Dosen't have a TOS that addresses anything useful." Too bad, that requires a little more typing.

Jesus, really? Can you tell me more?

Are you being facetious? (Or should I say "sarcastic"?)

I would assume she's referring to the Megan Meier case.

Well the Megan Myers Myspace death incident conviction (just a trial court decision) was based on "computer intrusion" which consisted of violating the TOS by providing false information. AFAIK this has not even been appealed. It would be interesting to see the jury instruction and any briefs supporting motions relating to this.

I'm referring to Lori Drew, a woman who created a false identity on MySpace and used it to harass a neighbor's kid until the kid committed suicide. She was prosecuted for "computer trespass" on the theory that by violating the terms of service of the site she was "exceeding her authorized access" to the site. The jury handed down a guilty verdict on three of four counts, but the judge tossed the verdicts on a post-trial motion. See also this thread.

I wasn't; I keep in surprisingly poor contact with landmark legal cases (even in Canada) for a law student. I'd heard about the case, but didn't know exactly what the charge was. I'll look into it some more; thanks.

Of course, even if jury decision had not been tossed out by the judge, that local case would not have created a precedent even within the same jurisdiction.

The judge tossed the jury verdicts earlier this month; the USAAG has not indicated yet whether they plan to appeal.

I have to say I think the trial judge was right in tossing the verdict as this was pretty draconian. Still it is not precedent unless the prosecution appeals and loses.

Not in the sense that an appeals court decision would, true. But judges and prosecutors are often very much aware of such things, and the decision of any court anywhere can be persuasive, especially on a question of first impression. The fact that this is now not a question of first impression at the trial court level will tend to chill further prosecutions at least somewhat, just as how it would have encouraged them had the judge not thrown out the convictions: I doubt very much we'll see another prosecution like this until and unless the court of appeals has had its say.

That is to say it has persuasive but not precedential value.