Arbcom gets a lawyer

[Vigilant]

if the WMF is now paying to defend editors for their on-wiki actions, that strikes me as news-worthy information.

That is my understanding.

Well, remember this? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_an ... rogram/FAQ

What is the Legal Fees Assistance Program?

The Legal Fees Assistance Program is an initiative proposed by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to help eligible users in support roles in the unlikely case that they face legal action as a defendant because of their role on Wikimedia projects. The program may be available, at WMF’s sole discretion, to assist these community members in finding qualified lawyers or to pay for some or all of the fees and costs associated with their legal defense, facilitating their ability to defend, if ever necessary, against legal proceedings.
Who does the Legal Fees Assistance Program cover?

The Legal Fees Assistance Program may provide assistance to eligible users in support roles who donate time and effort to any Wikimedia project in specified community administrator, arbitrator, email response, or project governance capacities. This includes people such as administrators, stewards, bureaucrats, arbitration committee members, and email response team members.

The program is intended to cover eligible users in a support role in every Wikimedia project, in any language, in any country. Coverage is subject to WMF’s sole discretion.

Here's the tiniest possibility that we've got your back.

Naw...

[crypt.net]

Call me amazed then: if hanging a carrot in front of someone to encourage them to provide content -- the erstwhile goal of this program -- is not at least vicarious publishing, then what is?

Mind you,

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_a ... ce_Program

specifically limits the program to admins, arbcom members, stewards, check-users, oversight, and so forth: in other words, the pseudo-employees of the project.

This was noted during the RFC:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request ... ce_Program

Check the "Oppose" votes; all rightly note that the people at greatest risk are none of the ones who are eligible for protection. In short, I was right: the WMF doesn't give a shit.

It would be an interesting exercise to go through the list of "Support" votes to see how many are/were eligible for protection.

[EricBarbour]

This was noted during the RFC:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request ... ce_Program

Check the "Oppose" votes; all rightly note that the people at greatest risk are none of the ones who are eligible for protection. In short, I was right: the WMF doesn't give a shit.

It would be an interesting exercise to go through the list of "Support" votes to see how many are/were eligible for protection.

The level of stupidity of that is simply amazing. They won't assist or indemnify actual content writers, just their little IRC buds.
If anything is likely to result in the WMF losing a court case, this might be it. A "legal aid" program that ignores actual Wikipedia
writers, rewards admins, and was decided with a vote that was corrupt, canvassed and slanted. SOPA all over again, only this will
cost them real money.

Crypt is right, virtually all the SUPPORT votes came from administrators, OTRS volunteers, checkusers, oversighters and arbitrators
on various WMF projects, plus a few patrollers (like, say, Glane23) angling for adminship.

[HRIP7]

Well, remember this? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_an ... rogram/FAQ

What is the Legal Fees Assistance Program?

The Legal Fees Assistance Program is an initiative proposed by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to help eligible users in support roles in the unlikely case that they face legal action as a defendant because of their role on Wikimedia projects. The program may be available, at WMF’s sole discretion, to assist these community members in finding qualified lawyers or to pay for some or all of the fees and costs associated with their legal defense, facilitating their ability to defend, if ever necessary, against legal proceedings.
Who does the Legal Fees Assistance Program cover?

The Legal Fees Assistance Program may provide assistance to eligible users in support roles who donate time and effort to any Wikimedia project in specified community administrator, arbitrator, email response, or project governance capacities. This includes people such as administrators, stewards, bureaucrats, arbitration committee members, and email response team members.

The program is intended to cover eligible users in a support role in every Wikimedia project, in any language, in any country. Coverage is subject to WMF’s sole discretion.

It's actually a decent thing of them to be doing.

[Peter Damian]

Foundation external counsel, 27 Jun 2013 10:59 “Thank you for your emails. I am taking instructions and will revert to you in due course”.

Foundation external counsel, 24 Aug 2013 00:49:18 “I have no instructions”.

Need to change thread title to 'Arbcom hasn't got a lawyer'. Seriously, was all this some elaborate practical joke, or was it a way for people like Anthony Kelly to say they are not allowed to talk about something?

[lilburne]

Force the issue.

[EricBarbour]

Force the issue.

Yes. You have little to lose, they have plenty.

[Peter Damian]

Force the issue.

Yes. You have little to lose, they have plenty.

Well first, it is an established principle that legal action is an absolute last resort. As this guidance states, “a claimant should try to resolve his/her claim without litigation. The court is increasingly taking the view that litigation should be a last resort and parties may wish to consider the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution”. So I have tried to give Arbcom every chance to resolve the dispute in an amicable and reasonable way. The long audit trail of unanswered emails, the broken promises and agreements will not be helping them, though, and I cannot think they have been given very good advice. They have even ignored pleas from the Foundation, who are equally keen to avoid the reputational risk this will inevitably expose them too.

I also think that legal action is a really stupid way of resolving an issue like this. As I said in the OP above: “This is absolutely one of those cases where getting the parties in a room over tea or coffee is guaranteed to resolve any difficulty. It really is quite a trivial matter. It has been blown out of all proportion by the passive-aggressive culture of Wikipedia. Any attempt to resolve it on a personal basis is met by the charge of ‘harassment’”.

Finally, it is getting close to September, and the elections are due in November. Courcelles, Risker, AGK, Davies, Hersfold, SilkTork, Lokshin may or may not go for re-election. Any other candidates should be clearly reminded that a successful candidacy may make them liable for legal action. If they are not reminded of this, and there were legal action, could they in turn take action against those who failed to remind them? And whose duty in fact is it to remind them?

You may say that this is nasty, and that this will result in no one running for Arbcom. Not at all. It will remind them that they have to be responsible, and have to act in a way that reflects the wider public interest. Something like this may force them to realise that they can’t point fingers in different directions under the cloak of anonymity, or ‘we are only volunteers’ or any other excuse.

[lilburne]

Question: How is it established that Arbcom has anything to do with this? Is it in anyway an incorporated body? I think that you'll find that if you are dealing with AC that what you are actually dealing with is individual named people. This is a group of arseholes on a web forum that are representative of nothing but themselves. Thus any newcomers will NOT be party to anything unless they choose to embroil themselves.

I've probably said this before: Your issue is with WMF who allow this to happen on their property and their communication to you that it would be removed:
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/barnes-v-yahoo

[Peter Damian]

Question: How is it established that Arbcom has anything to do with this? Is it in anyway an incorporated body? I think that you'll find that if you are dealing with AC that what you are actually dealing with is individual named people. This is a group of arseholes on a web forum that are representative of nothing but themselves. Thus any newcomers will NOT be party to anything unless they choose to embroil themselves.

Individual named people on a joint and several basis. Look, the Italian case proved that the WMF is immune from any legal action. So go for the organisation. No, it's not an incorporated body. Doesn't matter. That's the whole point of 'joint and several'. The Mafia is not incorporated, obviously not. But you can go after individual members so long as you can prove there was some organisation with nominated responsibilities. See Buscetta Theorem.

Buscetta revealed the existence and workings of the Sicilian Mafia Commission. It enabled Falcone to argue that Cosa Nostra was a unified hierarchical structure ruled by a Commission and that its leaders-–who normally would not dirty their hands with criminal acts–-could be held responsible for criminal activities that were committed to benefit the organization. This premise became known as the Buscetta theorem and would be recognised legally with the confirmation of the Maxi Trial sentence in January 1992.

I also have to prove that it is within the powers of the Arbcom to do what I am asking for. I have leaked correspondence that proves that. I sent the whole case to them in March and the fact they are (apparently) instructing a lawyer suggests they are taking it seriously.

[edit] That said, your link is interesting.

When Yahoo! failed to take down a false profile of the plaintiff even after a company employee assured her that it would be removed, the plaintiff sued the company claiming that it had acted negligently by not undertaking a promised action (removing the profile). barnes-v-yahoo

Right. Given that the Foundation promised to do certain things, are they liable? But I think I have been there. The Foundation, having looked at the material I sent them, quite rightly recommended that the Arbcom agree to my request (namely an apology and a re-badging of the ‘community ban’). Arbcom refused, saying they could not do so unless I promised to retract any legal threat, and to commit to never editing Wikipedia again. I then agreed to these conditions, but since then they have refused to answer any email. I contacted someone close to the Cabal about this, who privately contacted a member of Arbcom. The member refused even to discuss the matter, apparently.

[edit]

Thus any newcomers will NOT be party to anything unless they choose to embroil themselves.

Correct, which is why on January 1st 2014 when the new committee is elected, I will send all the new members the material that was sent to the current committee in March. If the other members choose to conceal this information from them, they would have to consider carefully the consequences of that concealment.

[thekohser]

I think the real issue here is that Buckner needs to be able to show material harm to his reputation or to his ability to earn a living. I don't think he has any proof of that, which then boils the "case" down to a silly group of silly people on a silly website taunting another person who isn't even using his real name on the silly website. No court is ever going to treat that seriously. So, the WMF and ArbCom know they have Buckner by the balls.

[Cla68]

I think the real issue here is that Buckner needs to be able to show material harm to his reputation or to his ability to earn a living. I don't think he has any proof of that, which then boils the "case" down to a silly group of silly people on a silly website taunting another person who isn't even using his real name on the silly website. No court is ever going to treat that seriously. So, the WMF and ArbCom know they have Buckner by the balls.

If you google his WP account name, does his real name come up? Has any WP administrator or WMF employee ever used his real name publicly? If so, then I think he (you) might have a case in the UK. Otherwise, why don't you ask the ArbCom to submit to binding arbitration from a professional arbitration agent on the WMF's dime? They have plenty of money to fund it. The problem is, if the arbitrator decides against you, you will have to let it go.

[Peter Damian]

I think the real issue here is that Buckner needs to be able to show material harm to his reputation or to his ability to earn a living. I don't think he has any proof of that, which then boils the "case" down to a silly group of silly people on a silly website taunting another person who isn't even using his real name on the silly website. No court is ever going to treat that seriously. So, the WMF and ArbCom know they have Buckner by the balls.

I'm concerned that when the Scotus book is published next year, someone will attempt to bring up the 'community ban'. At the moment it is potential for defamation only. That was the argument I made to them, and the fact they approached a lawyer (but without instructing him apparently) suggests they take it seriously. The radio silence, and the fact that the arbcom guy, when approached by a third party, refused to discuss it, suggests that also.

[lilburne]

Most likely.

[Peter Damian]

Has any WP administrator or WMF employee ever used his real name publicly?

Yes, you remember the case where I was banned from WMUK meetings for posing a risk to members. That was eventually deleted, and there was an apology of sorts on Jimbo's page.

Otherwise, why don't you ask the ArbCom to submit to binding arbitration from a professional arbitration agent on the WMF's dime? They have plenty of money to fund it. The problem is, if the arbitrator decides against you, you will have to let it go.

My original suggestion. But they won't go to 'Alternative Resolution' without a lawyer acting for them, apparently.

All this blew up when Fram started putting back the scarlet letter tags. At that time, I thought the publication date for the book would be 2013. Now it is finally (and definitely) fixed for September 2014, I'm more relaxed.

I also got very angry with them in April when my mother became seriously ill. She has now stabilised. They began the mucking around about then, and I find that hard to forgive. All I wanted was a confirmation about something very trivial. The Foundation emailed them but they refused to reply. I found that very difficult to deal with, particularly with the family business going on, frequent trips to the North, resolving financial affairs and so on. That's all sorted out, but leaves a very bitter taste.

[neved]

Yes, you remember the case where I was banned from WMUK meetings for posing a risk to members. That was eventually deleted, and there was an apology of sorts on Jimbo's page.

Deleted? It is still on the NET. I'll pm you the link.

[Vigilant]

Foundation external counsel, 27 Jun 2013 10:59 “Thank you for your emails. I am taking instructions and will revert to you in due course”.

Foundation external counsel, 24 Aug 2013 00:49:18 “I have no instructions”.

Need to change thread title to 'Arbcom hasn't got a lawyer'. Seriously, was all this some elaborate practical joke, or was it a way for people like Anthony Kelly to say they are not allowed to talk about something?

Here's a thought: Keep sending correspondence and asking for responses.
Every lawyer out there will bill for every little thing.

You could run up quite the bill waiting for the WMF to get of their collective asses.