Lawsuit: Rogue Wikipedia editors conspired to manipulate WP

[tarantino]

Yank Barry, who has a knack for getting positive press seemingly everywhere but wikipedia, had his attorney send letters to four people who have been editing his bio in ways that portray him in a less than flattering light. Regardless to the validity of his complaints, this makes me smile.

[EricBarbour]

Looks like a classic POV editwar, between Barry supporters and Barry enemies. With Wikipedia mishandling it as usual.

In 2011 someone kept inserting this crap. Lame.

Originally created in 2010 by an obvious SPA Accurateinfo973 (T-C-L), who wasn't blocked until four years later.

[TungstenCarbide]

...In 2011 someone kept inserting this crap. Lame...

.. Don’t bother trying to keep this off Wikipedia Falovitch: it will be there for the rest of your days. Like Billy the Kid would say “I’m gonna make ya famous.”, and he only said it in certain instances...

hilarious

[EricBarbour]

I dunno, should I write up this story? Is it worth saving?

[Poetlister]

I dunno, should I write up this story? Is it worth saving?

There are probably very many similar stories. This might be a good example to encapsulate the problem.

[HRIP7]

PR News Channel: Lawsuit: Rogue Wikipedia editors conspired to manipulate Wikipedia pages to ruin reputation of philanthropist, charity he co-founded

Suit filed by former ‘Louie, Louie’ lead singer Yank Barry and Global Village Champions Foundation established by Barry, boxing legend Muhammad Ali
Lawsuit alleges Wikipedia editors engaged in conspiracy over the last year by intentionally posting defamatory statements about Barry on Wikipedia
[...]

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, written by the people who use it. Four of those Wikipedia “editors” conspired to manipulate the Wikipedia page of philanthropist Yank Barry by posting false or misleading information about him and his charity, according to a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court.

Wikipedia, according to its own website, “is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy.” But Barry claims the lack of oversight and “easy” collaboration made it too easy to do him harm.

The suit names three Wikipedia editors along with a one identified only as “Does 1-50.” The lawsuit says the false statements and manipulation of his page cost the former Louie, Louie lead singer business to the tune of more than $10-million.

Barry and the Global Village Champions Foundation filed the suit. Global Village was co-founded by Barry and Muhammad Ali and has as its champions boxing greats Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson along with celebrities Snoop Dogg, LL Cool J and Steven Seagal.[...]

[Bielle]

PR News Channel: Lawsuit: Rogue Wikipedia editors conspired to manipulate Wikipedia pages to ruin reputation of philanthropist, charity he co-founded

Suit filed by former ‘Louie, Louie’ lead singer Yank Barry and Global Village Champions Foundation established by Barry, boxing legend Muhammad Ali
Lawsuit alleges Wikipedia editors engaged in conspiracy over the last year by intentionally posting defamatory statements about Barry on Wikipedia
[...]

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, written by the people who use it. Four of those Wikipedia “editors” conspired to manipulate the Wikipedia page of philanthropist Yank Barry by posting false or misleading information about him and his charity, according to a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court.

Wikipedia, according to its own website, “is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy.” But Barry claims the lack of oversight and “easy” collaboration made it too easy to do him harm.

The suit names three Wikipedia editors along with a one identified only as “Does 1-50.” The lawsuit says the false statements and manipulation of his page cost the former Louie, Louie lead singer business to the tune of more than $10-million.

Barry and the Global Village Champions Foundation filed the suit. Global Village was co-founded by Barry and Muhammad Ali and has as its champions boxing greats Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson along with celebrities Snoop Dogg, LL Cool J and Steven Seagal.[...]

I didn't see the other three names in the article, but I only skimmed it. Do we know who they are?

[HRIP7]

The article Yank Barry (T-H-L) has just had an AfD, closed as "speedy keep".

Recent thread at the BLP noticeboard: link

[thekohser]

I've requested a copy of the lawsuit from the publicist. I'll keep everyone posted, and I'll ask if I can republish (or excerpt) it here.

[thekohser]

Yank's article got off to a great start.

[HRIP7]

I didn't see the other three names in the article, but I only skimmed it. Do we know who they are?

A legal threat was mentioned on the article's talk page: link

I am in receipt of letter citing itself as coming from a "Law Corporation", addressed to four people that it identifies as being editors of this article, stating that the letter's author is writing at the request of Mr. Yank Barry, and stating that "Mr. Barry is prepared to proceed forthwith with the filing of an appropriate action for defamation and other tort claims that have caused him substantial damage as a direct and proximate result of your wrongful conduct." --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC) The editors involved may wish to review this in terms of expectations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No names other than that? Empty. I expect I'll get one soonish. - Richfife (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There are other names; I was just posting the details most pertinent to others who may seek to edit this page or to understand what is going on with this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "No names other than the 4 editors and Barry himself, right". The law firm is unnamed. You can reply via email if you like. - Richfife (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I received such a letter as well. I mentioned some of the details on WP:ANI. I'll be talking to a lawyer tomorrow. I'm not too worried. John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have talked to a lawyer, and am even less worried. John Nagle (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

I've requested a copy of the lawsuit from the publicist. I'll keep everyone posted, and I'll ask if I can republish (or excerpt) it here.

Ask them if they need help identifying the perps.

I'm your Huckleberry.

[tarantino]

Previous WO thread here.

[Triptych]

I've requested a copy of the lawsuit from the publicist. I'll keep everyone posted, and I'll ask if I can republish (or excerpt) it here.

Ask them if they need help identifying the perps.

I'm your Huckleberry.

I saw where Tarantino quickly picked up on this a few weeks ago.

John_Nagle (T-C-L) commented on Wikipedia that he received a lawsuit letter. He referred to an actual letter and stated that three other recipients besides him were addressed on it, but didn't name them. Grayfell (T-C-L) though piped up that he also had received one. Hrip7 pointed out that NatGertler (T-C-L) said he had received such a letter. The PR News Channel article says three named editors are being sued along with someone identified only as "Does 1-50." There is no editor I can find by that username. It seems at variance with Nagle's assertion that four had received an actual letter, because one can't send an actual letter to "Does 1-50" without more descriptive identification.

Anyhow: 1) John Nagle, 2) Grayfell, 3) Nat Gertler, and 4) "Does 1-50" appear to be the ones being sued.

Grayfell said he had sent the letter to WMF Legal so we can probably assume they're abreast of it.

[Vigilant]

I've requested a copy of the lawsuit from the publicist. I'll keep everyone posted, and I'll ask if I can republish (or excerpt) it here.

Ask them if they need help identifying the perps.

I'm your Huckleberry.

I saw where Tarantino quickly picked up on this a few weeks ago.

John_Nagle (T-C-L) commented on Wikipedia that he received a lawsuit letter. He referred to an actual letter and stated that three other recipients besides him were addressed on it, but didn't name them. Grayfell (T-C-L) though piped up that he also had received one. Hrip7 pointed out that NatGertler (T-C-L) said he had received such a letter. The PR News Channel article says three named editors are being sued along with someone identified only as "Does 1-50." There is no editor I can find by that username. It seems at variance with Nagle's assertion that four had received an actual letter, because one can't send an actual letter to "Does 1-50" without more descriptive identification.

Anyhow: 1) John Nagle, 2) Grayfell, 3) Nat Gertler, and 4) "Does 1-50" appear to be the ones being sued.

Grayfell said he had sent the letter to WMF Legal so we can probably assume they're abreast of it.

This made me chuckle.
Does 1-50 is a placeholder for "When I find out who you are, I'm going to sue you."

[Midsize Jake]

Does 1-50 is a placeholder for "When I find out who you are, I'm going to sue you."

HA! The guy really couldn't figure out that "Does 1-50" means there are 50 anonymous users who edited the article and they're grouping them into one class?

I guess future lawsuit-filers will just have to explicitly write "John Doe 1," "John Doe 2," "John Doe 3"... that's just going to annoy the judge even more than he/she probably is already.

Sheesh.

[thekohser]

I am getting the sense that this is more or less a publicity ploy by the plaintiff, because these Wikipediots wouldn't have $10 million to spare, even if they charged minors a $20 fee to become Wikimedia Commons admins!

A copy of the legal suit has been published on MyWikiBiz, if you wish to download it, and you don't care if I accidentally learn your IP address.

The publicist said I was welcome to call him with more questions, but I figured I'd wait to see if there is a short list of questions that the Wikipediocracy "community" might want answered.

[dogbiscuit]

Well, I'm surprised it has taken this long for someone to sue, or rather it is surprising that law suits have been so thin on the ground.

Of course, now Wikipedia has its new privacy policy, there will be lots of identifying data that the lawyers can request to identify Mr Doe and his siblings.

[EricBarbour]

Threads merged.

As an aside, if someone wants to study the editwarrors and send the info to Barry's lawyer, I won't encourage or discourage you.
Oh, no no no, we would never do such a terrible, terrible thing, would we? "Officially", of course not, no no no.

But if you do help the lawyer, you terrible thing, make sure WO gets some media credit for helping out. You awful person.

[EricBarbour]

Does 1-50 is a placeholder for "When I find out who you are, I'm going to sue you."

HA! The guy really couldn't figure out that "Does 1-50" means there are 50 anonymous users who edited the article and they're grouping them into one class?

I guess future lawsuit-filers will just have to explicitly write "John Doe 1," "John Doe 2," "John Doe 3"... that's just going to annoy the judge even more than he/she probably is already.

Get used to it, it's going to be SOP when Wikipedia is involved in a legal action. I can just picture the formation of a legal sub-specialty for "reputation management" issues, especially Wikipedia editing. Then there will be a market for professional Wikipedia "outers". Now that would be funny.

[Vigilant]

Does 1-50 is a placeholder for "When I find out who you are, I'm going to sue you."

HA! The guy really couldn't figure out that "Does 1-50" means there are 50 anonymous users who edited the article and they're grouping them into one class?

I guess future lawsuit-filers will just have to explicitly write "John Doe 1," "John Doe 2," "John Doe 3"... that's just going to annoy the judge even more than he/she probably is already.

Get used to it, it's going to be SOP when Wikipedia is involved in a legal action. I can just picture the formation of a legal sub-specialty for "reputation management" issues, especially Wikipedia editing. Then there will be a market for professional Wikipedia "outers". Now that would be funny.

Let's not forget expert witnesses who can command $700+/hour fees in certain cases.

[Mancunium]

Yank Barry
The Publicity Agency link

Awards:
2012 Nobel Peace Prize nomination
2013 Nobel Peace Prize nomination
2014 Nobel Peace Prize nomination
India Humanitarian Service Award 2008
Bahamian Red Cross Humanitarian Award
Cote D’’Ivoire Humanitarian Peace award
Juarez Mexico Hands of Love and Hope Award
Gusi Peace Prize for Social Services
Philanthropy and International Humanitarianism in Manila
Philanthropist of the Year at the GLA 2011 Awards
Beijing Red Cross Award
Medal of Accomplishment from the State Agency of Refugees
Proclamation of Yank Barry Day
Humanitarian Uplift Award
The Flag of the United States of America
WBO Award presented to Yank Barry
Universal Aide Society Kaliningrad
Phoenix Award
Honorary Georgian Citizen
Juarez Hands of Love and Hope
Founders Award
Cote d'Ivore Honorary Chiefs
Humanitarian Peace Award
Bahamian Red Cross
Yank Barry - True Leader Award
Honorary Chief of Police
Juarez Humanitarian
India Humanitarian Award
Liberian Humanitarian 1
Liberian Humanitarian 2
Muscular Dystrophy Association
Guardian Angel Yank Barry
American Diabetes Association
The Pinnacle Award
Gusi Peace Prize 2010
Philanthropist of the Year
GLA 2011 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Y. Barry, Philanthropist of the year
The Leaders International
Honorary Rank of 2 Star General
Yank Barry - Honorary Rank
Yank Barry - Certificate of Appreciation
International Award "Art of Kindness"
Top Rated Non-Profit of 2012
Top Rated Non Profit of 2013
2013 Global Leadership Award
Life for a Kid Award
Yorkshire Air Ambulance Award
Sports Media Promotions Award
World Boxing Association Medal presented to Yank Barry
International Ambassador of The Boxing Hall of Fame - Great Britain

[Mancunium]

Former Kingsmen singer suing Wikipedia for $10M
Record American, 19 June 2014 link

A lawsuit brought against Wikipedia by former Kingsmen singer Yank Barry, who co-founded the Global Village Champions Foundation with boxing legend Muhammad Ali, claims the site’s editors posted false and defamatory information and engaged in conspiracy to damage his reputation, Barry announced Thursday, June 19. The site alleges that editors have been conspiring against Barry and his foundation for more than a year. Barry is seeking damages in excess of $10 million.

From 1968 to 1970, Barry was the lead singer of The Kingsmen, whose version of “Louie, Louie” was a hit in 1963. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, written by the people who use it. Four of those Wikipedia “editors” conspired to manipulate the Wikipedia page of philanthropist Yank Barry by posting false or misleading information about him and his charity, according to a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court. Wikipedia, according to its own website, “is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy.” But Barry claims the lack of oversight and “easy” collaboration made it too easy to do him harm. [...] The lawsuit says the false statements and manipulation of his page cost the former Louie, Louie lead singer business to the tune of more than $10-million. [...]

“Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the statements published and posted by defendants are defamatory per se because they are viewed as so serious that they naturally cause harm and the existence of injuries are presumed from the fact of publication,” the complaint alleges. The lawsuit also says that the Wikipedia editors removed “truthful and verifiable content from the Wikipedia pages pertaining to plaintiffs with the intent and purpose to downplay, minimize, attack or criticize favorable content about the plaintiffs all with the intent and purpose of highlighting and focusing reader attention on the false and defamatory content published and posted by defendants with the aim and purpose, as stated by defendants, ‘of threatening plaintiff Yank Barry’s livelihood because his means of livelihood are extremely suspect.’”

Barry has recently been featured on CNN and CNN International, and interviewed by written about in the Jerusalem Post, Canada’s Globe and Mail, TIME among others, for his work freeing Syrian refugees in Bulgaria, but at times none of those references were included on Barry’s Wikipedia page. Barry says he tried every measure to correct the accuracy of his page on Wikipedia but was left with no choice but file suit against the Wikipedia editors who were filling his page with false or misleading information. “My page was so ridiculously false and made be sound like a terrible person and people believed it causing deals to fall through,” says Barry. “I finally had enough.”

[HRIP7]

Yank's article got off to a great start.

Accurateinfo973 originally created Barry's biography in 2010.

There is a sockpuppet investigation for Accurateinfo973 (T-C-L), involving various accounts deemed by Wikipedia administrators to have made promotional edits to Barry's biography over the years.

I can't remember the last time I actually created a case, as opposed to investigating/closing a case. This case involves the Yank Barry article. That article was brought to my attention from the COI noticeboard when there was a complaint that an editor named Gogvc was making promotional edits to the article (adding awards and achievements, removing negative information). The username matched the Twitter handle of Barry's charitable organization (Global Village). The Gogvc account was then blocked for username violations and spam. Since then, I've become directly involved in the article as an editor, so I'm unable to act as an administrator with regards to any editors or actions that take place there.

Two other accounts have shown up at the article since then. The first account was Theprincessmom1, who made the same kinds of edits as Gogvc before disappearing. One of the edits triggered a Cluebot revert because it appeared to be vandalism.

The most recent account to edit is Accurateinfo973. It's an old account, created in February 2010. I believe this account is the same as Megavox. Megavox was an account created in March 2009, and whose entire edit history was to begin a draft for the Yank Barry article on their user page. Megavox stopped editing in April of that year, and Accurateinfo973's first edits were to finish that same draft on Megavox's user page and then copy it into article space to create the Yank Barry article. Most recently, Accurateinfo973 has returned to the Yank Barry article on April 11 of this year, following an absence of almost a year from Wikipedia. That was about a month after the Gogvc account was blocked, and a day after Theprincessmom1's edits. Accurateinfo973 was making substantially the same changes as Gogvc and Theprincessmom1 did, edit-warring with multiple editors in the process (including myself). This prompted a second notification at the COI noticeboard. I followed that up with a request at ANI asking for assistance. At that point, Accurateinfo973 began discussing issues on the talk page of the article and I suggested that help may not be needed, but there has still been some friction (both in the article itself and on the talk page).

There have been other editors in the past who have edited the Yank Barry article in a promotional manner, including Reggie3155 and Digital villager (again matching the "Global Village" charity belonging to Yank Barry) but neither account has edited in a long time and they'd be stale for any checks.

24.73.100.90 listed above has taken to the article and been making the same kinds of edits as Gogvc, Theprincessmom1, and Accurateinfo973. I don't expect CheckUser to verify an IP but I thought I should include it as a probable sockpuppet who is currently active. Also, while I was in the middle of writing this report, a new IP (166.205.55.26) appeared to make the same edits.

Here are some diffs below showing the kind of behavior I'm talking about.

Gogvc adding awards, removing information about Barry's jail time.

Gogvc again adding Nobel Prize nominations, removing info about Barry's jail time.

Theprincessmom1 putting the Nobel Prize nominations back in, again removing references to jail time.

Accurateinfo973 showing up to reinsert the Nobel Prize nominations, removing an even larger chunk of info related to Barry's legal troubles.

Accurateinfo973 again removing the negative material, but this time introducing a press release for one of the Nobel Prize nominations.

24.73.100.90 reinserting info about one of the Nobel Prize nominations and using the same press release for a source.

24.73.100.90 rewriting the lead to remove the extortion conviction.

166.205.55.26 just now showed up to again remove the extortion information from the lead.

Some assistance would be greatly appreciated. There appear to be editors with a conflict of interest due to their usernames and/or promotional editing (making claims that we are threatening Barry's livelihood or claiming that everyone is out to get him). It has been difficult to fix this article with all of these attempts to return the article to an ad for Barry and his charity, and figuring out if there is sockpuppetry involved will help greatly. -- Atama頭 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What's needed here is some analysis as to when, whether and to what extent the article was indeed unduly positive or negative over the past four years. It's certainly not unheard of for minor Wikipedia biographies like this to oscillate between advertisement and hatchet job, depending on who last edited it:

[HRIP7]

Some background reading:

Joe O'Connor, National Post, April 15, 2012, The world according to Yank: Montrealer with checkered past gets Nobel nod, or does he?

Eric Reguly, The Globe and Mail, November 22, 2013, Yank Barry, motivated by past sins, becomes a philanthropist

Billy Cox, Herald Tribune, March 12, 2014, Sarasota man again nominated for Nobel prize

[Triptych]

Does 1-50 is a placeholder for "When I find out who you are, I'm going to sue you."

HA! The guy really couldn't figure out that "Does 1-50" means there are 50 anonymous users who edited the article and they're grouping them into one class?

Oh sure, rub it in, geniuses. You sure know how to hurt a guy.

[Triptych]

Former Kingsmen singer suing Wikipedia for $10M
Record American, 19 June 2014 link
“Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the statements published and posted by defendants are defamatory per se because they are viewed as so serious that they naturally cause harm and the existence of injuries are presumed from the fact of publication,” the complaint alleges. The lawsuit also says that the Wikipedia editors removed “truthful and verifiable content from the Wikipedia pages pertaining to plaintiffs with the intent and purpose to downplay, minimize, attack or criticize favorable content about the plaintiffs all with the intent and purpose of highlighting and focusing reader attention on the false and defamatory content published and posted by defendants with the aim and purpose, as stated by defendants, ‘of threatening plaintiff Yank Barry’s livelihood because his means of livelihood are extremely suspect.’”

Barry has recently been featured on CNN and CNN International, and interviewed by written about in the Jerusalem Post, Canada’s Globe and Mail, TIME among others, for his work freeing Syrian refugees in Bulgaria, but at times none of those references were included on Barry’s Wikipedia page. Barry says he tried every measure to correct the accuracy of his page on Wikipedia but was left with no choice but file suit against the Wikipedia editors who were filling his page with false or misleading information. “My page was so ridiculously false and made be sound like a terrible person and people believed it causing deals to fall through,” says Barry. “I finally had enough.”

There's a lot to learn about Mr. Barry and this case and the Wikipedia article and of course the prior versions of that article. I haven't found time to really do it yet. I think it's interesting the approach taken by his lawyers above. They're not necessarily attacking false or malicious edits of themselves, but rather saying that it was a question of accentuations and deletions, that Barry's copious and magnanimous accomplishments and prestigious and long list of awards were tossed out in favor of gossipy negative stuff from 40 years ago. And that this was necessarily damaging to him in the eyes of his prospective business partners who come to the article, by Google of course where it's no doubt the first or second hit.

Can this be a successful lawsuit? To take the idea to its extreme, lets hypothesize the existence of a person who at 18 is arrested and convicted for indecent exposure for drunkenly public urinating near an elementary school playground at 11 pm at night. He or she goes on to graduate from a great university magna cum laude, develops a vaccine for shingles, saves 26 schoolchildren from a burning bus sustaining burns to 70% of his body. Editors at his or her Wikipedia however delete all this noble stuff, with claims of socking and so forth, and leave the article with a solitary paragraph about "convicted sex offender." While none types anything technically false, can they nevertheless be sued for leaving the article in an incredibly misleading and off-kilter state damaging to the subject's reputation?

[Vigilant]

I sure do hope we get to watch individual "editors" support the cost of responding to subpoenas during discovery.

[HRIP7]

Former Kingsmen singer suing Wikipedia for $10M
Record American, 19 June 2014 link
“Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the statements published and posted by defendants are defamatory per se because they are viewed as so serious that they naturally cause harm and the existence of injuries are presumed from the fact of publication,” the complaint alleges. The lawsuit also says that the Wikipedia editors removed “truthful and verifiable content from the Wikipedia pages pertaining to plaintiffs with the intent and purpose to downplay, minimize, attack or criticize favorable content about the plaintiffs all with the intent and purpose of highlighting and focusing reader attention on the false and defamatory content published and posted by defendants with the aim and purpose, as stated by defendants, ‘of threatening plaintiff Yank Barry’s livelihood because his means of livelihood are extremely suspect.’”

Barry has recently been featured on CNN and CNN International, and interviewed by written about in the Jerusalem Post, Canada’s Globe and Mail, TIME among others, for his work freeing Syrian refugees in Bulgaria, but at times none of those references were included on Barry’s Wikipedia page. Barry says he tried every measure to correct the accuracy of his page on Wikipedia but was left with no choice but file suit against the Wikipedia editors who were filling his page with false or misleading information. “My page was so ridiculously false and made be sound like a terrible person and people believed it causing deals to fall through,” says Barry. “I finally had enough.”

There's a lot to learn about Mr. Barry and this case and the Wikipedia article and of course the prior versions of that article. I haven't found time to really do it yet. I think it's interesting the approach taken by his lawyers above. They're not necessarily attacking false or malicious edits of themselves, but rather saying that it was a question of accentuations and deletions, that Barry's copious and magnanimous accomplishments and prestigious and long list of awards were tossed out in favor of gossipy negative stuff from 40 years ago. And that this was necessarily damaging to him in the eyes of his prospective business partners who come to the article, by Google of course where it's no doubt the first or second hit.

Can this be a successful lawsuit? To take the idea to its extreme, lets hypothesize the existence of a person who at 18 is arrested and convicted for indecent exposure for drunkenly public urinating near an elementary school playground at 11 pm at night. He or she goes on to graduate from a great university magna cum laude, develops a vaccine for shingles, saves 26 schoolchildren from a burning bus sustaining burns to 70% of his body. Editors at his or her Wikipedia however delete all this noble stuff, with claims of socking and so forth, and leave the article with a solitary paragraph about "convicted sex offender." While none types anything technically false, can they nevertheless be sued for leaving the article in an incredibly misleading and off-kilter state damaging to the subject's reputation?

I would hope so, if that is indeed what has happened here. Witnesses in US courts are asked to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If you tell the truth, but wilfully omit or even expunge part of the whole truth, you are in effect lying.

This sort of thing is of course a staple with POV pushers in Wikipedia. SlimVirgin eloquently pointed out a similar case at AE the other day (with respect to Deepak Chopra's views of AIDS, as described in his Wikipedia biography).

WP:ADAM (T-H-L) relates, too.

(By the way, Barry wasn't a member of the original Kingsmen, according to one of the press articles linked above, though he is mentioned on louielouie.org.)

[Midsize Jake]

Can this be a successful lawsuit?...

I'm afraid not. It's unfortunate that Mr. Barry is the way he is, but the fact remains that he's suing because he wants his preferred version maintained, he's not suing to have the whole thing completely deleted. Personally I believe it should be common sense that someone suing Wikipedia would have no chance of the former but at least some chance at the latter, but not everyone has common sense.

Anyway, no judge in the world (or at least the United States) is ever going to uphold his right to self-promote on someone else's publishing platform, and for now at least they won't even deign to define it as a publishing platform. However, given recent coverage in Europe of the "right to be forgotten," this would be a really good time for someone with deep pockets to sue the WMF for a take-down. But obviously that's not what he wants.

Now, he might think he has a chance because he's taking a somewhat novel approach, i.e., he's saying that the removal of his discography and awards and Nobel Prize nominations creates a tonal imbalance in the article and thus constitutes defamation. But if he really does think he has a chance based on that, I fear it's due more to his own delusionality than it is to any existing case law, at least in the US.

[Vigilant]

Can this be a successful lawsuit?...

I'm afraid not. It's unfortunate that Mr. Barry is the way he is, but the fact remains that he's suing because he wants his preferred version maintained, he's not suing to have the whole thing completely deleted. Personally I believe it should be common sense that someone suing Wikipedia would have no chance of the former but at least some chance at the latter, but not everyone has common sense.

Anyway, no judge in the world (or at least the United States) is ever going to uphold his right to self-promote on someone else's publishing platform, and for now at least they won't even deign to define it as a publishing platform. However, given recent coverage in Europe of the "right to be forgotten," this would be a really good time for someone with deep pockets to sue the WMF for a take-down. But obviously that's not what he wants.

Now, he might think he has a chance because he's taking a somewhat novel approach, i.e., he's saying that the removal of his discography and awards and Nobel Prize nominations creates a tonal imbalance in the article and thus constitutes defamation. But if he really does think he has a chance based on that, I fear it's due more to his own delusionality than it is to any existing case law, at least in the US.

I may have missed it in the pdf file, but as far as I can tell, he's not suing the WMF.
He's suing four individuals, collectively and severally, for $21M for defamation/conspiracy/emotional distress.
That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Yank Barry may have some unsavory things in his past, but there's not a chance in hell this gets tossed on summary judgement or that an anti-SLAPP suit can prevail here. They've admitted what they've written, he says it's untrue and has taken extreme exception to it. My guess would be that the courts let this play out at least through discovery. If I was Barry, I'd make it hurt. $50K each, minimum, in lawyer's fees. Lots of days off from work. Fine tooth comb through their records.

We shall see.

[HRIP7]

He will have to prove actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. In general, that is a pretty high threshold. As I understand US defamation law, you can publish lies as long as you believed them to be true at the time.

[Randy from Boise]

Can this be a successful lawsuit?...

I'm afraid not. It's unfortunate that Mr. Barry is the way he is, but the fact remains that he's suing because he wants his preferred version maintained, he's not suing to have the whole thing completely deleted. Personally I believe it should be common sense that someone suing Wikipedia would have no chance of the former but at least some chance at the latter, but not everyone has common sense.

Anyway, no judge in the world (or at least the United States) is ever going to uphold his right to self-promote on someone else's publishing platform, and for now at least they won't even deign to define it as a publishing platform. However, given recent coverage in Europe of the "right to be forgotten," this would be a really good time for someone with deep pockets to sue the WMF for a take-down. But obviously that's not what he wants.

Now, he might think he has a chance because he's taking a somewhat novel approach, i.e., he's saying that the removal of his discography and awards and Nobel Prize nominations creates a tonal imbalance in the article and thus constitutes defamation. But if he really does think he has a chance based on that, I fear it's due more to his own delusionality than it is to any existing case law, at least in the US.

I may have missed it in the pdf file, but as far as I can tell, he's not suing the WMF.
He's suing four individuals, collectively and severally, for $21M for defamation/conspiracy/emotional distress.
That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Yank Barry may have some unsavory things in his past, but there's not a chance in hell this gets tossed on summary judgement or that an anti-SLAPP suit can prevail here. They've admitted what they've written, he says it's untrue and has taken extreme exception to it. My guess would be that the courts let this play out at least through discovery. If I was Barry, I'd make it hurt. $50K each, minimum, in lawyer's fees. Lots of days off from work. Fine tooth comb through their records.

We shall see.

This would be an enormous blow against transparency at WP if he prevails.

I hope and expect WMF Legal will come to the rescue, he is attacking those least able to defend themselves. It would be a horrible precedent if he wins or even bloodies up good faith editors with maliciously-intended "discovery"...

RfB

[tarantino]

Anyhow: 1) John Nagle, 2) Grayfell, 3) Nat Gertler, and 4) "Does 1-50" appear to be the ones being sued.

Grayfell said he had sent the letter to WMF Legal so we can probably assume they're abreast of it.

Grayfell is Ethan Urbanik and number 4 is Richfife (T-C-L), who said on Talk:Yank Barry,

Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. - Richfife (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nat Gertler (whose name is mispelled as Nate throughout the filing) has his own wiki bio. Someone should add a controversy section to it.

[lilburne]

This would be an enormous blow against transparency at WP if he prevails.

I hope and expect WMF Legal will come to the rescue, he is attacking those least able to defend themselves. It would be a horrible precedent if he wins or even bloodies up good faith editors with maliciously-intended "discovery"...

Why? They added whatever it was they added, they removed whatever it was they removed. Are they not responsible for what they write? Are they not responsible for what they remove?

[thekohser]

...is Richfife (T-C-L), who said on Talk:Yank Barry,

Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. - Richfife (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated to this, Richfife appeared in my lecture presentation at Rollins College, because I happened to single out (at random) for analysis the Wikipedia article about Xing Technology (T-H-L). Richfife is the heaviest contributor to that Wikipedia article (more edits than the next 4 editors combined). Rich Fife was one of the first seven employees of Xing Technology. Conflict of interest much, Rich? Tim, is this one of those "good faith editors" you were telling us about?

[Randy from Boise]

This would be an enormous blow against transparency at WP if he prevails.

I hope and expect WMF Legal will come to the rescue, he is attacking those least able to defend themselves. It would be a horrible precedent if he wins or even bloodies up good faith editors with maliciously-intended "discovery"...

Why? They added whatever it was they added, they removed whatever it was they removed. Are they not responsible for what they write? Are they not responsible for what they remove?

In my opinion, they seem to have been nothing more than normal editors attempting to make neutral a POV-drenched puff piece.

RfB

[thekohser]

In my opinion, they seem to have been nothing more than normal editors attempting to make neutral a POV-drenched puff piece.

RfB

Why was it their business to do that?

[HRIP7]

There is a new thread at BLP/N. This refers to the following prior discussions:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive842#I just received a legal threat over the phone about Yank Barry
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Accurateinfo973 - Yank Barry article, ongoing COI problem.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive836#Yank Barry
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yank Barry
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lawsuit_Filing

It's also popped up on the talk page of Jimmy Wales, who says "I don't know anything about this." (A reply that took him just 8 minutes from the time Collect posted the BLP/N link on his talk page, inviting comment.)

[Vigilant]

Can this be a successful lawsuit?...

I'm afraid not. It's unfortunate that Mr. Barry is the way he is, but the fact remains that he's suing because he wants his preferred version maintained, he's not suing to have the whole thing completely deleted. Personally I believe it should be common sense that someone suing Wikipedia would have no chance of the former but at least some chance at the latter, but not everyone has common sense.

Anyway, no judge in the world (or at least the United States) is ever going to uphold his right to self-promote on someone else's publishing platform, and for now at least they won't even deign to define it as a publishing platform. However, given recent coverage in Europe of the "right to be forgotten," this would be a really good time for someone with deep pockets to sue the WMF for a take-down. But obviously that's not what he wants.

Now, he might think he has a chance because he's taking a somewhat novel approach, i.e., he's saying that the removal of his discography and awards and Nobel Prize nominations creates a tonal imbalance in the article and thus constitutes defamation. But if he really does think he has a chance based on that, I fear it's due more to his own delusionality than it is to any existing case law, at least in the US.

I may have missed it in the pdf file, but as far as I can tell, he's not suing the WMF.
He's suing four individuals, collectively and severally, for $21M for defamation/conspiracy/emotional distress.
That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Yank Barry may have some unsavory things in his past, but there's not a chance in hell this gets tossed on summary judgement or that an anti-SLAPP suit can prevail here. They've admitted what they've written, he says it's untrue and has taken extreme exception to it. My guess would be that the courts let this play out at least through discovery. If I was Barry, I'd make it hurt. $50K each, minimum, in lawyer's fees. Lots of days off from work. Fine tooth comb through their records.

We shall see.

This would be an enormous blow against transparency at WP if he prevails.

I hope and expect WMF Legal will come to the rescue, he is attacking those least able to defend themselves. It would be a horrible precedent if he wins or even bloodies up good faith editors with maliciously-intended "discovery"...

RfB

From the perspective of a legal circus observer:

Why would you go after the strongest target first?
That's a poor litigation strategy.
Get a couple of easy wins in, then call on the stronger player to capitulate or face protracted legal hell.

Even if any of the defendants are squishy, I'm not sure that the WMF will be able to join the suit.
They've stated time and again that they're covered under section 230 immunity.
I bet that plays against any attempts to join.

If they succeed in joining, they may open themselves up to discovery.

I'm pretty sure this case will survive a motion for summary judgement.
Just as I'm pretty sure that none of the named 4 nor the potential John Does 1-50 will likely have the legal or financial resources to withstand a well bankrolled opponents.

Keep in mind that the standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in a criminal complaint, the standard in a tort case is "more likely than not" aka 50.1% likely.
If the defendants' lawyers aren't at least reasonably good, the plaintiff WILL prevail here.
There don't appear to be many facts to adjudicate, mostly questions of law.

On the upside, it might make editors a bit more cautious about what they write in the BLP of a well off person.

For me...

[Vigilant]

Since I love betting pools...
1) the WMF goes all in and has legal vigorously attempt to join the lawsuit on the defendants' side
2) the WMF provides legal advice and money for a defense for each of the defendants
3) the WMF provides money for a legal defense
4) the WMF provides legal advice
5) the WMF does nothing material for the defendants

I'm going with 5.

Edit:
A late addition from the peanut gallery:
6) users banned, Office action, thrown to the wolves with some throwaway comment made at the same time by Ironholds or the like that gives succour to the appellants

[Vigilant]

Timely question in Jimboland

This seems to me to be an attack on Wikipedia by going after the shallow pockets SLAPP-style and letting the WMF off scot free since they have a lawyer and money. Assuming these are good faith editors who merely attempted to restore neutrality to a POV bio written by COI editors, my question is this: Does the Wikimedia Foundation have our backs or not? Carrite (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The WMF is protected by law, so that leaves editors vulnerable. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Whats your guess, Tim?

[Vigilant]

One of the few things that comes to mind to me here is that this would make a great way for some California attorney to get some serious publicity for their pro bono work, and I can think that there might be quite a few very good and prominent attorneys willing to take it on for that reason alone. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew this was going to come up.

If I'm an attorney looking to do pro bono work for a good cause, I'm not taking a case where the defendants freely talked about smearing a guy on wikipedia because they don't like his business model or whatever. The conspiracy element alone could monopolize several months of discovery and motions.

His lawyers could make them produce copies of their hard drives looking for deleted Skype chats, IRC logs, emails, PMs, deleted files, etc. His legal team has every right to dig into the defendants' financials looking for unclean hands.
Did they ever invest/work for/profit from in one of his companies?
Did they ever invest/work for/profit from one of his competitors?
Did they collude with other editors to malign him through his BLP?

I have a hard time making a first amendment argument here.

As Yank's attorney, I'd make the case that the defendants seem like they're overly attached to the topic to be totally uninvolved academics working on an encyclopedia. I doubt a judge (or attorney) without a hefty background at en.wp would disagree.

I certainly don't take a case that could likely drag on for a year with a defendant who probably has other, easily unearthed skeletons in his wiki-closet.

edit:
Fix broken line.

[dogbiscuit]

Since I love betting pools...
1) the WMF goes all in and has legal vigorously attempt to join the lawsuit on the defendants' side
2) the WMF provides legal advice and money for a defense for each of the defendants
3) the WMF provides money for a legal defense
4) the WMF provides legal advice
5) the WMF does nothing material for the defendants

I'm going with 5.

I'm going with 6 - users banned, Office action, thrown to the wolves with some throwaway comment made at the same time by Ironholds or the like that gives succour to the appellants.

[Midsize Jake]

I'm going with 5.

Probably, but if someone sets up a legal defense fund for the WP'ers being sued, the WMF could (I think) safely donate money to that, which would be a nice gesture on their part. Obviously the problem is with the word "nice," so I don't think they'll do it, but they do have a new Executive Director now.

Also, just to clarify what I wrote earlier, if he's trying to get the article deleted, I would think the logical target would be the company providing the hosting (the WMF), but he isn't trying to do that, so he has to sue the users. I understand that (pretty much), but even if he does succeed, what then? There would just be another bunch of replacement Wikipedians buzzing about like a swarm of angry hornets to do the same thing, and he'll have to sue them too, ad nauseam - only the next batch might be even harder to identify. So as much as I'd love to see it work, I just don't see any future in this strategy, other than maybe creating a chilling effect that won't last even a year or so.

Besides, press coverage of the lawsuit will be Streisand Effect writ large anyway. It just seems silly and illogical, whereas suing for a deletion would not only be logical, but potentially effective in the long-term as well... if it were to actually work.

[Poetlister]

In my opinion, they seem to have been nothing more than normal editors attempting to make neutral a POV-drenched puff piece.

RfB

Why was it their business to do that?

They thought they were improving Wikipedia. Indeed, it may be argued that they were.

[thekohser]

In my opinion, they seem to have been nothing more than normal editors attempting to make neutral a POV-drenched puff piece.

RfB

Why was it their business to do that?

They thought they were improving Wikipedia. Indeed, it may be argued that they were.

I'm sure the guys manning the 88mm Flak guns thought they were improving Germany, too.

(Godwin.)

[The Devil's Advocate]

In my opinion, they seem to have been nothing more than normal editors attempting to make neutral a POV-drenched puff piece.

RfB

Hmmm . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =605788452

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =606128335

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =605918502

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =599486768

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =599462257

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =613440118

I don't know, Nagle just seems like kind of a dick.

[EricBarbour]

I'm going with 6 - users banned, Office action, thrown to the wolves with some throwaway comment made at the same time by Ironholds or the like that gives succour to the appellants.

Funny you should mention that. Because I was looking at the Derek Smart editwar today, and #6 is exactly what happened. Badly performed too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... erek_Smart
Note that the arbitration was started on 19 December 2006, and on 23-26 December Thatcher completely wiped all the arbitration page histories and reposted the text--to hide something.

And a bonus feature! That pathetic fool Philippe Beaudette showed up in 2013, and blanked the Derek Smart talkpage archives, probably because Smart made legal threats. The archives are still accessible via this histories, and dude, are they ugly. Socks for days, and that shithead Stifle throwing his weight around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive1

[Vigilant]

In my opinion, they seem to have been nothing more than normal editors attempting to make neutral a POV-drenched puff piece.

RfB

Hmmm . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =605788452

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =606128335

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =605918502

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =599486768

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =599462257

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =613440118

I don't know, Nagle just seems like kind of a dick.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

I thought you were the DEVIL's advocate...