Lawsuit: Rogue Wikipedia editors conspired to manipulate WP

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:19 pm

Vigilant wrote: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?

Money for legal defense, WMF not making themselves a party to the case.

If good faith POV fixers are successfully targetable, there will be nobody willing to fix COI POV of Biographies of Living People. Jimmy Wales feels deeply about the need for NPOV. I don't think WMF can afford to let the precedent of a SLAPP-type loss happen.

tim

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:20 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: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?
Money for legal defense, WMF not making themselves a party to the case.

If good faith POV fixers are successfully targetable, there will be nobody willing to fix COI POV of Biographies of Living People. Jimmy Wales feels deeply about the need for NPOV. I don't think WMF can afford to let the precedent of a SLAPP-type loss happen.

tim

I believe I've spotted the problem here.
Shit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =605788452
if pretty far from "good faith".

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:26 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: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?
Money for legal defense, WMF not making themselves a party to the case.

If good faith POV fixers are successfully targetable, there will be nobody willing to fix COI POV of Biographies of Living People. Jimmy Wales feels deeply about the need for NPOV. I don't think WMF can afford to let the precedent of a SLAPP-type loss happen.

tim
I believe I've spotted the problem here.
Shit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =605788452
if pretty far from "good faith".

There are some of Nagle's edits that are problematic. Public figure, nothing I've seen is an outright lie, probably safe — but like you say, maybe not safe enough to win a summary judgment ahead of discovery.

But keep in mind he is going after 4 people and up to 50 John Does, not just 1 person.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:39 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: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?
Money for legal defense, WMF not making themselves a party to the case.

If good faith POV fixers are successfully targetable, there will be nobody willing to fix COI POV of Biographies of Living People. Jimmy Wales feels deeply about the need for NPOV. I don't think WMF can afford to let the precedent of a SLAPP-type loss happen.

tim
I believe I've spotted the problem here.
Shit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =605788452
if pretty far from "good faith".
There are some of Nagle's edits that are problematic. Public figure, nothing I've seen is an outright lie, probably safe — but like you say, maybe not safe enough to win a summary judgment ahead of discovery.

But keep in mind he is going after 4 people and up to 50 John Does, not just 1 person.
RfB

Nagle is in deep doo-doo.

Perhaps this will lead to pending changes on BLPs?

The fastest way for the WMF to get joined to this action would be to delete the article and history but I'm pretty sure they don't want to defend a criminal obstruction of justice charge.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:42 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: There are some of Nagle's edits that are problematic. Public figure, nothing I've seen is an outright lie, probably safe — but like you say, maybe not safe enough to win a summary judgment ahead of discovery.

But keep in mind he is going after 4 people and up to 50 John Does, not just 1 person.

Of course when public justice is not available, some people will turn to private justice.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:04 pm

Good diffs, TDA.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:09 pm

Our Berkeley Wikipedian-in-residence opines from his lofty legal perch...

California has a particularly strong anti-SLAPP statute, and a lot of groups that are more than happy to pursue anti-SLAPP suits without cost - if any of the people involved end up needing to be connected to one and haven't been directed their way yet, I'd be happy to help out if the WMF ends up wanting to not get involved - I literally live a couple blocks away from an organization dedicated to handling anti-SLAPPs, and can think of at least half a dozen other legal groups in my area that would be happy to jump at getting rid of this. California's statute rather conveniently also prevents discovery from occurring until the anti-SLAPP motion is resolved, and guarantees timely resolution as well as recovery of legal fees and court costs in most scenarios. Obviously, getting sued is never a fun thing, but this will be resolved in pretty much no time with little time investment, no cost, and no effect other than the deserved public embarrassment of Yank Barry. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be forwarding your personal contact information to Yank Barry's legal team Monday morning.
I sincerely hope they add you as John Doe #1.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:19 pm

Vigilant wrote: (nasty post)

This is a bullshit post and it should be redacted at once.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:24 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: (nasty post)
This is a bullshit post and it should be redacted at once.

RfB

Why is that a nasty post?
He inserts himself into the fray and while doing so, casts aspersions on Yank Barry.

In the words of the WMF, each editor is responsible for their own edits.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:31 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: (nasty post)
This is a bullshit post and it should be redacted at once.

RfB
Why is that a nasty post?
He inserts himself into the fray and while doing so, casts aspersions on Yank Barry.

In the words of the WMF, each editor is responsible for their own edits.

You are threatening real life legal harm to settle scores with a perceived enemy.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:40 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: (nasty post)
This is a bullshit post and it should be redacted at once.

RfB
Why is that a nasty post?
He inserts himself into the fray and while doing so, casts aspersions on Yank Barry.

In the words of the WMF, each editor is responsible for their own edits.
You are threatening real life legal harm to settle scores with a perceived enemy.

RfB

People who say things like

California has a particularly strong anti-SLAPP statute, and a lot of groups that are more than happy to pursue anti-SLAPP suits without cost - if any of the people involved end up needing to be connected to one and haven't been directed their way yet, I'd be happy to help out if the WMF ends up wanting to not get involved - I literally live a couple blocks away from an organization dedicated to handling anti-SLAPPs, and can think of at least half a dozen other legal groups in my area that would be happy to jump at getting rid of this. California's statute rather conveniently also prevents discovery from occurring until the anti-SLAPP motion is resolved, and guarantees timely resolution as well as recovery of legal fees and court costs in most scenarios. Obviously, getting sued is never a fun thing, but this will be resolved in pretty much no time with little time investment, no cost, and no effect other than the deserved public embarrassment of Yank Barry. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

are not quiet mice minding their own business.

Kevin Gorman is actively inserting himself into a legal suit and offering advice and support to one side while publicly disparaging the other.

I'm sure UC Berkeley will be interested in why a WiR is trying to take on additional legal risk. Perhaps his friends at the imaginary "anti-SLAPP" lawfirm an fit him in for an initial consult...pro bono, of course!

But then, Jimbo, ARBCOM, the WMF are all totally fine going "meatspace" with people's employers...

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:43 pm

I'm not inclined to suggest that Vigilant withdraw the post, or even inclined to suggest that a member should not decide that someone's actions are such that he should take action. There is no sense of blackmail, he is observing someone displaying foolish bravado and pointing out that such foolishness has consequences. There is a parallel with our Liverpool vandal where members here deemed it appropriate to assist when it appeared that someone had overstepped the mark.

Mr V is trying to make a simple point to a Wikipedian - actions have consequences. If you believe that the comment is appropriate and acceptable then there should be no consequences; if you believe that comment is unacceptable then surely the "real life harm" is being done by Kevin and the alleged victim should have the opportunity to be aware of this defamation and determine a course of action.

I would rather Vigilant does this openly and publicly then at least Kevin has a chance to consider this and redact or apologise - actions which in a court of law would be acknowledged.

Remember, WO does not have a policy of no legal threats to oppress the victims of childish nonsense like this.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:47 pm

Noting Vigilant's posts, I don't really understand anti-SLAP very well, but it seems rather foolish to say "I know that I can use a feature of the law designed to avoid legal action so I am therefore going to continue to abuse the victim." I have a feeling that a judge would look dimly on that.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:56 pm

Here's another world beater where he offers legal advice.

There's absolutely *no* way that this suit will survive California's anti-SLAPP statute - it simply makes too many claims that are undefendable on their face. There's also pretty much zero question that Yank Barry will be found to be at least a limited person public figure in a broad enough sense to cover most if not all statements in the suit, which raises the bar for succeeding on a claim of defamation from negligence to actual malice - something that is *extraordinarily* hard to prove here, and something that barely ever succeeds even in cases with a hell of a lot more grounds. Some lawsuits against Wikipedia editors have been exceptionally serious and needed active, well-financed legal defenses... this particular one won't survive even an initial motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute. That's not to say I don't think legal support should be arranged for the people involved, just that it's extraordinarily unlikely that this is really a cause for anyone to worry Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I sure hope the other wikirati take your advice and fail to lawyer up due to the "triviality" of this legal action.
Nothing to worry about. Move along. We got this.

My dream...four scruffy wikipediots enter court on different days, confident in their purity and appearing "pro se". The opposing legal team knew they were showing up for the slaughter and were careful not to laugh or snicker when the defendants arrive in court. No need to make the judge any more sympathetic to their inevitable plight.

As each case progresses, a series of remarkable similarities appear. Each defendant is undone by motions made by the plaintiffs that they did not expect and have no counters for. The Barry legal teams easily frame the question and, despite the court's best efforts, paint each defendant into a corner.

At the end of each day of the trial, each defendant is in materially worse legal shape. The anti-SLAPP defenses have not worked since they didn't know how to highlight all of the requirements in order to apply for a stay in their case and now ... discovery of a most invasive nature has been ordered:
* hard drives
* emails
* any and all wiki accounts
* lists of edits to all wiki projects
* social media accounts
* IMs, IRC logs, Skype chats, PMs, etc
* interests in any companies owned by plaintiff
Failure to comply leads to contempt which leads to big fines and/or jail.
Destruction of evidence leads to criminal obstruction of justice charges and, given the interstate/international nature of the wiki and its storage, can lead to federal charges. Please note: There are no federal misdemeanors.

Discovery against the WMF also commences. Account names, IP addresses, edits in searchable format, etc, etc. As they have done historically, the WMF says nothing publicly and hands over the subpoenaed information with barely a whimper. They are thrilled to wash their hands of this case. Always more "editors" where those came from.

In a panic, one of them (a rich one) hires a lawyer. At the initial consult in the lawyer's offices, he shakes his head sadly. "You appeared "pro se"? Why? Do you know anything about California SLAPP law? OK... To be honest, you're in quite a bit of trouble. We're going to need to start working on the assumption that this civil case is effectively lost and move towards mitigating your losses and preventing a criminal complaint by settling. What? You don't want to settle? Hmmm... Let me see if there's someone in my Rolodex (yes, they still use them) who can better address your needs ..."

In the end...well, I won't spoil it. Tale for another post.

Next chapter, "Where the fuck am I going to get $21M?"

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:12 pm

More legal genius at Jimmy's talk page...

Some homeowner and "umbrella" policies cover defamation suits. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Though far fewer renter's policies, one might imagine.

IOW, each and every editor named in any lawsuit is on his own to obtain paid legal counsel, and Wikipedia does not make any claims at all that it will not freely give out all personal information it may have about editors per those legal statements. Unless they come to their senses, that is. Collect (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The WMF has come to their senses.
Individual editors mean exactly squat to them. It's perfectly rational.

It's like a queen bee thinking about losing a worker.
"Ehhh. I'll make more."

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:06 pm

Kevin Gorman wrote:...I'd be happy to help out if the WMF ends up wanting to not get involved - I literally live a couple blocks away from an organization dedicated to handling anti-SLAPPs, and can think of at least half a dozen other legal groups in my area that would be happy to jump at getting rid of this...

I'd assume Mr. Gorman is referring to the California Anti-SLAPP Project, which conveniently is also one of the first things that pops up when you Google the term "SLAPP." However, I don't believe this is a pro-bono operation - they do seem to make a point of claiming that they sometimes can counter-sue to have the defendant's legal fees paid by the original plaintiff, but I'm guessing there's no guarantee that this would actually happen in any given case.

However, I'm forced to agree with Mr. Gorman in that this group, and perhaps others, would be reasonably eager to take on a case like this, at least if there was a reasonable chance that their fees would ultimately be paid.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:51 pm

I misspoke earlier. It's not summary judgement prior to discovery. It's motion to strike under the SLAPP law.
Summary judgement would follow discovery.

Sorry for my old guy memory mistake.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:35 pm

Vigilant wrote:I misspoke earlier. It's not summary judgement prior to discovery. It's motion to strike under the SLAPP law.
Summary judgement would follow discovery.

Sorry for my old guy memory mistake.

Good, free legal advice is hard to come by.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:50 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:I misspoke earlier. It's not summary judgement prior to discovery. It's motion to strike under the SLAPP law.
Summary judgement would follow discovery.

Sorry for my old guy memory mistake.
Good, free legal advice is hard to come by.

RfB

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:39 pm

Vigilant wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: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...

Yah, those are killer diffs, TDA. I like the 5th one where Nagle just switches out the "musical artist" infobox for the "criminal" one. Yeah there's genuine animus there in those, it's not just an editor trying to make a better encyclopedia article. A judge is going to be interested in the facts, but he or she is also going to take an interest in motives and animuses and disregard for or even a desire to ruin Yank Barry's reputation. And I think the editing record and the diff comments are consistently showing that here and there, as you are pointing out just to begin. For whatever reasons, these people wanted to hurt him.

Bielle · Unread post by **Bielle** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:34 pm

Triptych wrote:
Yah, those are killer diffs, TDA. I like the 5th one where Nagle just switches out the "musical artist" infobox for the "criminal" one. Yeah there's genuine animus there in those, it's not just an editor trying to make a better encyclopedia article. A judge is going to be interested in the facts, but he or she is also going to take an interest in motives and animuses and disregard for or even a desire to ruin Yank Barry's reputation. And I think the editing record and the diff comments are consistently showing that here and there, as you are pointing out just to begin. For whatever reasons, these people wanted to hurt him.

I wonder if we shall see such things being oversighted in the next month or so.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:31 pm

Bielle wrote:
Triptych wrote:
Yah, those are killer diffs, TDA. I like the 5th one where Nagle just switches out the "musical artist" infobox for the "criminal" one. Yeah there's genuine animus there in those, it's not just an editor trying to make a better encyclopedia article. A judge is going to be interested in the facts, but he or she is also going to take an interest in motives and animuses and disregard for or even a desire to ruin Yank Barry's reputation. And I think the editing record and the diff comments are consistently showing that here and there, as you are pointing out just to begin. For whatever reasons, these people wanted to hurt him.
I wonder if we shall see such things being oversighted in the next month or so.

There was someone at WP:AN/ANI a couple or three days ago that was already calling for wiping out the article's history, however that met with disagreement from others.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:34 pm

FYI: I emailed Mr. Dapeer, Mr. Barry's attorney that filed the lawsuit, suggesting Wikipediocracy as a potential research resource for him, pointed him specifically to this thread, and even told him he could get an account here and would probably receive a warm welcome.

EDIT: I hope this is okay with Wikipediocracy's management. I disclaimed any function here other than forum participant, and did not make any assertions other than "you might find it useful" on Wikipediocracy's behalf.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:39 pm

Triptych wrote:FYI: I emailed Mr. Dapeer, Mr. Barry's attorney that filed the lawsuit, suggesting Wikipediocracy as a potential research resource for him, pointed him specifically to this thread, and even told him he could get an account here and would probably receive a warm welcome.

EDIT: I hope this is okay with Wikipediocracy's management. I disclaimed any function here other than forum participant, and did not make any assertions other than "you might find it useful" on Wikipediocracy's behalf.

An "anonymous forum participant" would be more accurate.

You assume a warm welcome that will not be forthcoming from me.

RfB /// Tim Davenport

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:45 pm

Not to worry I've got enough warmth and love on this issue to counter a dozen Randys.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:46 pm

Vigilant wrote:[

Perhaps this will lead to pending changes on BLPs?

No, it would kill Pending Changes...

I for one would never, ever, ever click APPROVED on a pending changes request, because it would instantaneously create potential liability for the entire article history under the legal logic being advanced in the Yank Barry case.

This is an absolute killer for the cause of transparency on WP already and the death knell for pending changes if the case succeeds.

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:47 pm

lilburne wrote:Not to worry I've got enough warmth and love on this issue to counter a dozen Randys.

It's an excellent way to troll every single Wikipedian off this site, for sure. I presume that is the intent.

RfB

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:54 pm

From the discussions those editing the page weren't in the business of doing anything from a NPOV but were inserting POV into what purports to be an encyclopedia. Additionally they were doing so from a position of malice. I have no problem with them inserting opinion into a blog post, and although my opinion is that all WP pages are nothing more than blogs, that isn't what the WMF presents to the world. So I'm comfortable with them being burned as witches and warlocks.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:00 pm

lilburne wrote:From the discussions those editing the page weren't in the business of doing anything from a NPOV but were inserting POV into what purports to be an encyclopedia. Additionally they were doing so from a position of malice. I have no problem with them inserting opinion into a blog post, and although my opinion is that all WP pages are nothing more than blogs, that isn't what the WMF presents to the world. So I'm comfortable with them being burned as witches and warlocks.

The anonymous forum posters at Wikipediocracy are coming in resoundingly in favor of real life legal targeting of actually named Wikipedia editors!!!

It's remarkable!!!

This site needs to get this issue fixed, fast.

RfB

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
lilburne wrote:From the discussions those editing the page weren't in the business of doing anything from a NPOV but were inserting POV into what purports to be an encyclopedia. Additionally they were doing so from a position of malice. I have no problem with them inserting opinion into a blog post, and although my opinion is that all WP pages are nothing more than blogs, that isn't what the WMF presents to the world. So I'm comfortable with them being burned as witches and warlocks.
The anonymous forum posters at Wikipediocracy are coming in resoundingly in favor of real life legal targeting of actually named Wikipedia editors!!!

It's remarkable!!!

This site needs to get this issue fixed, fast.

RfB

In case it escaped your notice again - This site does NOT purport to be anything other than opinion. It does not have the CONCEIT of collecting of all the world's information, and presenting it with a Neutral Point Of View. Any one adding opinion and POV over there does so at the jeopardy of being hoisted by their petard.

Bielle · Unread post by **Bielle** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:12 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
lilburne wrote:From the discussions those editing the page weren't in the business of doing anything from a NPOV but were inserting POV into what purports to be an encyclopedia. Additionally they were doing so from a position of malice. I have no problem with them inserting opinion into a blog post, and although my opinion is that all WP pages are nothing more than blogs, that isn't what the WMF presents to the world. So I'm comfortable with them being burned as witches and warlocks.
The anonymous forum posters at Wikipediocracy are coming in resoundingly in favor of real life legal targeting of actually named Wikipedia editors!!!

It's remarkable!!!

This site needs to get this issue fixed, fast.

RfB

Why should they not be targetted if they are maliciously distorting a BLP in a way that has real-life, negative consequences for their target? This is a real question, not a rhetorical one.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:34 pm

Vigilant wrote:It's like a queen bee thinking about losing a worker.
"Ehhh. I'll make more."

Sometimes you come up with very neat analogies for difficult concepts that would take me a paragraph or two to explain.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:01 pm

John Nagle of Menlo Park, California's Wikipedia edit of 20:50 13 March 2014 (UTC) changed Yank Barry's infobox template from "musical artist" to one that labeled him "criminal" three times.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:14 pm

Triptych wrote:John Nagle of Menlo Park, California's Wikipedia edit of 20:50 13 March 2014 (UTC) changed Yank Barry's infobox template from "musical artist" to one that labeled him "criminal" three times.

If the subject were going after one person for that specific change, that's one thing.

He is not.

My understanding is that he is alleging that everyone who edited that article, or who discussed it on the talk page, was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defame. He is suing four named people and up to 50 unnamed people.

If my reading of the case is correct, this is an attack on the essence of Wikipedia.

RfB

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:22 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Triptych wrote:John Nagle of Menlo Park, California's Wikipedia edit of 20:50 13 March 2014 (UTC) changed Yank Barry's infobox template from "musical artist" to one that labeled him "criminal" three times.
If the subject were going after one person for that specific change, that's one thing.

He is not.

My understanding is that he is alleging that everyone who edited that article, or who discussed it on the talk page, was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defame. He is suing four named people and up to 50 unnamed people.

If my reading of the case is correct, this is an attack on the essence of Wikipedia.

Well, I don't know, but perhaps Randy you might more limitedly construe it as an attack on Wikipedia's handling of living persons (BLPs).

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:24 pm

Bielle wrote:Why should they not be targetted if they are maliciously distorting a BLP in a way that has real-life, negative consequences for their target? This is a real question, not a rhetorical one.

And a good question, too. I've been considering this, and I'm sort-of leaning towards the notion that lawyers could make the argument that if Barry and his PR people had as much right and ability to endlessly insert positive content into the article as the WP'ers have to endlessly revert them and/or insert negative content, then you essentially would have a "fair and level playing field" in which everyone is simply using the WMF's free revenge publishing platform to exercise their free-speech rights, etc., yada yada - and therefore the lawsuit would be spurious and they wouldn't be bringing it. But since Wikipedia policy clearly favors the WP'ers and puts the Barry camp at a significant disadvantage, the playing field is not level and the WP'ers are taking cruel advantage of their superior position in order to defame Barry, and possibly for no real reason other than sheer annoyance.

In other words, the fact that the defamatory content is added within Wikipedia policy may not protect the WP'ers from civil action once it's established that the policy is unfair to the article subject. Right now that would probably be their best defense, but if that defense could be effectively countered, they might ultimately "get what they deserve" for choosing to operate within an unfair system. But even then, a judge isn't likely to demand that they pay Barry millions or even thousands of dollars - maybe I'm wrong, but a simple C&D seems like the best Barry could probably hope for, realistically. (As has already been stated though, if the WP'ers have half-decent lawyers I doubt he'll be able to manage even that.)

That said, I believe Mr. Randy is being needlessly alarmist here about the effect of this type of lawsuit on the "Pending Changes" initiative, or in thinking Wikipedia is under some sort of existential threat here. The WP'er community was never going to accept Pending Changes across the board, or even on all (or most) BLPs. The only way it might happen is if it's imposed by the WMF, which is almost as unlikely, or by US legislation - which might be engendered by a court decision, though that would definitely be appealed and could take years to resolve. This case just isn't strong enough, and Barry isn't publicly appealing enough to drum up any political pressure for legislation, much less the amount that would be required.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:54 pm

Of course when public justice is unavailable, people are prone to take out private justice.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:30 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:The anonymous forum posters at Wikipediocracy are coming in resoundingly in favor of real life legal targeting of actually named Wikipedia editors!!!

It's remarkable!!!

This site needs to get this issue fixed, fast.

RfB

I wouldn't call it 'resoundingly' as so far I can count supporters of the legal case who are members here on the fingers of one hand.

You're entitled to your opinion, so are the folks lined up on the other side.

It's a discussion board.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:52 pm

It's probably too early to take sides in this particular case, because we don't really know what Barry's strategy is going to be, or if he even has one yet.

That said, if Mr. Randy is upset about the idea that such a lawsuit can be brought at all, then that's not reasonable. People have to be able to sue other people for libel and defamation, the targets have to be able to counter-sue for filing a spurious lawsuit, and so on. Otherwise you have legal chaos, or at best a formalized ochlocracy similar to what Wikipedia has internally. Society as a whole can't function like that. Hopefully Mr. Randy isn't suggesting this; I suspect he's simply saying it sucks that spurious so-called "strategic" suits are still the source of such stress and strife, sociologically speaking. Only he doesn't have the same talent for alliteration that I have, of course.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:05 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:If my reading of the case is correct, this is an attack on the essence of Wikipedia.

Bingo, sorta. It's an attack on (usually anonymous) people who want to turn an ersatz encyclopedic biography of someone who happens to be alive into an attack piece.

I understand the slippery slope concerns, but I'm actually surprised that you're holding to the front line on this one. You wouldn't do that, and I don't think you approve of people who do.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:15 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: (nasty post)
This is a bullshit post and it should be redacted at once.
RfB
Why is that a nasty post?
He inserts himself into the fray and while doing so, casts aspersions on Yank Barry.

In the words of the WMF, each editor is responsible for their own edits.
You are threatening real life legal harm to settle scores with a perceived enemy.

I'm having a hard time imagining a law firm that couldn't come up with Mr. Gorman's contact information.

Given the combustible (if not explosive) combination of Kevin's temperament and his particular collection of hats, he's inevitably going to get into serious legal trouble. Not if but when, and I predict the WMF will drop him like a baggie of smack when it becomes clear that a reckoning is in the cards.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:23 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:I predict the WMF will drop him like a baggie of smack when it becomes clear that a reckoning is in the cards.

There has to be a better analogy than this. Smack actually relieves pain, and is also highly addictive and not cheap. I'd say "bloodstained dagger," but daggers are, of course, very sharp.

Something like "fistful of molten lead" might work...?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:42 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:If my reading of the case is correct, this is an attack on the essence of Wikipedia.
Bingo, sorta. It's an attack on (usually anonymous) people who want to turn an ersatz encyclopedic biography of someone who happens to be alive into an attack piece.

Lets listen to a sad song and cry a river.

Stierlitz · Unread post by **Stierlitz** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:47 pm

lilburne wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:If my reading of the case is correct, this is an attack on the essence of Wikipedia.
Bingo, sorta. It's an attack on (usually anonymous) people who want to turn an ersatz encyclopedic biography of someone who happens to be alive into an attack piece.
Lets listen to a sad song and cry a river.

This also works:

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:06 pm

lilburne wrote: Lets listen to a sad song and cry a river.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:30 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:I predict the WMF will drop him like a baggie of smack when it becomes clear that a reckoning is in the cards.
There has to be a better analogy than this. Smack actually relieves pain, and is also highly addictive and not cheap. I'd say "bloodstained dagger," but daggers are, of course, very sharp.

Something like "fistful of molten lead" might work...?

Drop him like a hot potato.

Good-old fashioned metaphor, short and to the point.

hot potato (Thesaurus)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:16 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Triptych wrote:FYI: I emailed Mr. Dapeer, Mr. Barry's attorney that filed the lawsuit, suggesting Wikipediocracy as a potential research resource for him, pointed him specifically to this thread, and even told him he could get an account here and would probably receive a warm welcome.

EDIT: I hope this is okay with Wikipediocracy's management. I disclaimed any function here other than forum participant, and did not make any assertions other than "you might find it useful" on Wikipediocracy's behalf.
An "anonymous forum participant" would be more accurate.

You assume a warm welcome that will not be forthcoming from me.

RfB /// Tim Davenport

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:19 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
lilburne wrote:From the discussions those editing the page weren't in the business of doing anything from a NPOV but were inserting POV into what purports to be an encyclopedia. Additionally they were doing so from a position of malice. I have no problem with them inserting opinion into a blog post, and although my opinion is that all WP pages are nothing more than blogs, that isn't what the WMF presents to the world. So I'm comfortable with them being burned as witches and warlocks.
The anonymous forum posters at Wikipediocracy are coming in resoundingly in favor of real life legal targeting of actually named Wikipedia editors!!!

It's remarkable!!!

This site needs to get this issue fixed, fast.

RfB

The anonymous forum posters at ANI and Jimbo talk are coming in resoundingly in favor of real life legal targeting of actually named Wikipedia editors!!!
Meatspace, bay-bee! But thoughtfully...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:21 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Triptych wrote:John Nagle of Menlo Park, California's Wikipedia edit of 20:50 13 March 2014 (UTC) changed Yank Barry's infobox template from "musical artist" to one that labeled him "criminal" three times.
If the subject were going after one person for that specific change, that's one thing.

He is not.

My understanding is that he is alleging that everyone who edited that article, or who discussed it on the talk page, was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defame. He is suing four named people and up to 50 unnamed people.

If my reading of the case is correct, this is an attack on the essence of Wikipedia.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 5:32 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: (nasty post)
This is a bullshit post and it should be redacted at once.
RfB
Why is that a nasty post?
He inserts himself into the fray and while doing so, casts aspersions on Yank Barry.

In the words of the WMF, each editor is responsible for their own edits.
You are threatening real life legal harm to settle scores with a perceived enemy.
I'm having a hard time imagining a law firm that couldn't come up with Mr. Gorman's contact information.

Given the combustible (if not explosive) combination of Kevin's temperament and his particular collection of hats, he's inevitably going to get into serious legal trouble. Not if but when, and I predict the WMF will drop him like a baggie of smack when it becomes clear that a reckoning is in the cards.

Having seen his pictures and heard him speak, I cannot imagine the sheer joy a litigating attorney would derive from putting Kevin on the stand.

He is a caricature for the ills of wikipedia.
In prosecuting him, they would be burning wikipedia in effigy.

So ironic. So just.