Then this seems fairly clearcut. The only issues I can see are
1. Did ArbCom make the right choice in stripping David Gerard of the tools?
2. Was ArbCom's wording in announcing its decision appropriate?
3. Did ArbCom make the correct choice in agreeing to David Gerard's request for revision deletion?
4. Did Mike Godwin act appropriately by serving, in an unofficial capacity, as a broker?

The answers to questions 1 and 3 appear to me to be "yes". The answer to 2 seems to be "maybe". I have no particular thoughts on 4; in any event, it's a WMF issue rather than an en-wiki one.

Cade Metz, reporter for the Register, contacted David and Mike Godwin about a story he was writing about David losing his privileges. He had copies of at least one of Godwin's emails to the functionaries mailing list. This raised the sense of urgency at the discussion.

Does Cade Metz carry any clout outside of WP circles? I am not familiar with this writer and the influence that Cade brings.

It's now becoming clear what this is: It's a repetition of the same old story where someone says that because they edit under their real name, no-one should be allowed to say anything about their actions as an editor, no matter how obviously abusive those actions may be. DG is not the first to do it, and he won't be the last.

Some states treat unincorporated voluntary associations like the PTA and the NCAA as "public bodies". As Wikipedia can best be described an unincorporated voluntary association (albeit with very unclear governance and membership), it would be subject to regulation as such in those states where the state prescribes certain forms of regulation and treatment for such bodies.

He demanded a full retraction and apology or oversight? or what?

Why was the response to these (presumably) legal threats not a block like everyone else gets?

Ah, the wit and wisdom of Roger Davies. Where does WP find these idiots? Does Jimbo call Lynn Stalmaster and ask for misfits who specialize in dishonesty, insincerity and evasiveness? I've never seen so many awful people congregate so tightly in one activity.

I hypothesize that off-wiki legal threats are frequently not met with blocks.

You should know as well as anyone that legal threats are not allowed on-wiki because they are a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing. The Foundation receives private legal threats all the time, some are dealt with by OTRS or oversight, some are ignored. (I specifically decline to comment one way or the other on whether David ever made a "threat," as making that judgement would require access to information that I do not have.)

You might want to review Gray v. Canisius College of Buffalo, 76 A.D.2d 30, 33, 430 N.Y.S.2d 163, 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980). The NY court at least seems to favor enforcing it against private colleges and corporations and to disfavor enforcement against unincorporated associations, see Brasseur v. Speranza, 21 A.D.3d 297, 800 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005), but they have sometimes stretched the definitions to make otherwise unincorporated associations subject to Art. 78 by reference to other statutes, see Cullinan v. Ahern, 212 A.D.2d 103, 106, 628 N.Y.S.2d 895, 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995).

The probable claim would try to tie the enwp arbcom as an aggregation of persons (or a board, or a tribunal) under the WMF, which they would claim was a corporation under the law, see Crane Co. v. Anaconda Co., 39 N.Y.2d 14, 18, 346 N.E.2d 507, 510, 382 N.Y.S.2d 707, 710 (N.Y. 1976). Then you get into all sorts of things like who could order the arbcom to do things, what sorts of contacts did it have with the WMF, who recognized it as a body, etc. I have no idea how a court would rule, but to answer your specific point, a boyscout troop organized as a non-profit corporation or a daycare center organized as an LLC could be sued under Article 78 for decisions they make, in my non-legal opinion.

Given that Wikipedia capriciously "community bans" people all the time, for all sorts of reasons, most of them massively more trivial than Gerard's offenses, why has no one proposed Gerard's outright community bannination and removal of all possibly-removable bits?

If anyone ever deserved such treatment, surely it's Wavy Davey Gerard

In the US, at least, "not actually true" is an element of the definition that you forgot to mention. It has not been made clear to anyone that arbcom is actually conceding that anything they said about DG was not actually true. In particular, the person you were directly responding to with this post was clearly under the impression that it was DG's own actions (and truthful reporting of the same) that had damaged his reputation.

Yeah, it appears that I was missing a nuance between U.S. and Canadian defamation law. In Canada, truth can be used as a defense once defamation has been established, but does not prevent a finding of defamation from being reached in the first place.

Try to calm yerself — just keep repeating this handy mantra:

There Is No Cabal, There Is No Elite, It's Only A Mop, Rag Mop …

I'm always seeing blather about what Wikipedia is not, especially on AN.
It's not a battleground, it's not a court of law, it's not this, not that etc etc.

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

"Not actually true" is not an absolute element for defamation even in the US; some states have allowed defamation actions to proceed when the libelee is a private person, the libel amounts to an invasion of privacy, and the state has recognized a right of privacy greater than that protected by the federal Constitution. Such claims are as likely to be captioned as "invasion of privacy" as of "defamation", but they are fundamentally defamation claims.

"Not actually true" is not an element of defamation under English law, in any case.

This is, at best, wishful thinking and at worst deliberate misrepresentation.

Wikipedia is, perhaps, a soap opera with a Big Ball O' Trivia™-masquerading-as-an-encyclopedia attached.

Encyclopedia Dramatica?

Off-wiki legal threats are not a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing, then?

Well, most of the people with whom one is supposed to collaborate would have no way of knowing about an off-wiki (that is, privately communicated) legal threat.

What exactly is the public policy theory under which people are given carte blanche to cover up their own actions?

In fairness, complaining that a post is defamatory and asking for it to be removed does not constitute a legal threat. I may be asking that you remove it because you will not want to leave something which unfairly impugns my character, rather than asking you to remove it to avoid legal action.

One of the problems with wikipedia is that people too quickly pretend to be lawyers and ask what's going to get them sued, rather than simply worrying about what is accurate and what might tend to harm someone.

If the arbcom statement gave the impression (or could be read as giving the impression) that Gerard had actively misused his tools, and all that arbcom wanted to say was he'd been indiscreet with his reference to his use of them, then it is not unreasonable for him to request them to clarify or retract - and it is not unreasonable for them to do so.

The problem emerges because legal counsel got involved and asked the committee questions about how a court would view this. Now either counsel is acting on Gerard's behalf and implying he could sue, or counsel is acting for the Arbcom's protection and implying WMF/Arbcom might get sued. However, I strongly suspect Godwin intervened (or was asked to) because he has clout, rather than because anyone was in risk of being sued.

Yes they would it would be on Wikipedia Review.

As I said, truth is a defense (usually an absolute one) against defamation once defamation is established, so the law generally doesn't actually allow people to cover up their actions (except insofar as it's usually cheaper and less work for the defendant to settle by acceding to the plaintiff's demands, but that would be true regardless of what the law said).

Wouldn't such state laws conflict with the federal constitution's protection of freedom of speech?

And shouldn't invasion of privacy be an entirely separate cause of action, anyway, rather than being encompassed as defamation?

WP:ISNOT= Bizarro code:

Durova,



You are aware that each revision contains the entire text of all comments made before that point, in addition to the comment that was added, right? Now, of course, a redacted (if need be) version of the discussion should be posted, but having the text of the original revisions hidden isn't such a big deal.

I argued quite strongly that the discussion should not have been suppressed, as it did not discuss the statement in sufficient detail so as to constitute repeating the problematic part of the statement. Obviously that didn't carry any weight.

WP:CIVILITY = Kangaroo Courtesy

Ja Ja

Hell.

Fucking gun happy americans.

[Moderator's note: I moved a post about acceptable image-hosting sites to here, in WRR. -- gomi]

Seems Durova has decided that linking to David Gerard's blog is unacceptable


I'm no copyright expert, but I call this out as more silly trolling.

Kiddie porn? Information must be free.

Material embarrassing to Wikipedians? Not so much.

O, ye mighty Wiki-Witch, thank you kindly for the added dramah!!!

It's simpler than that - Durova has committed to the position that it is absolutely unacceptable to reproduce - for any purpose, including legitimate criticism - the content any email. If she backs down from this position, she has some explaining to do about a certain block of Giano, so she has to hold to it.

I just read the conversation on your talk page. Good Lord, she's got the shortest playbook I've ever seen!

1. Piss in someone's cornflakes.
2. When called out, express your high admiration for them in the past and how disappointed you are in them now.
3. Really, really disappointed. You could do so much better. (Because it worked so well for Mom.)
4. Insist you were just trying to diffuse things.
5. Point out the massive amounts of photo editing you'd rather be doing and, oh, wouldn't you like to go edit some articles too?

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

That "my work is more important than yours " undertone is probably the most annoying part of it all, in my view.

You guys should refactor your hurtful comments.

Ironically, becoming skilled at digitally restoring old photographs might actually be a useful skill that could conceivably get someone a job. If so, then it would be an example of Wikipedia/Commons volunteer work helping someone with their employment prospects.

Anyway, this thread is not about Durova. Again, I hope David Gerard is learning a lesson here. By pulling in a personal favor from Mike Godwin (Jimbo has denied being involved) Gerard has caused greater trouble for himself. Now, a lot more people know what about what happened. Whenever someone googles Gerard's name, they may find the Register article. I guess that applies to Mike Godwin, also. I hope that in the future if Mike Godwin tries to approach the ArbCom in the same mealy-mouthed semi-official capacity, that they ask him to either go away and return in his official capacity, or to stay out of it.

There are people who actually possess the skills, not pretend on Wikipedia.

I know. Several times I've supervised or otherwise worked with computer graphics and digital photo specialists. I admired their skills. So, if I was hiring someone for such a job they would probably need to show some actual on-the-job experience with photo or graphics work, but working with photos on Commons could help give someone beginning experience with it.

Mike Godwin states that he got involved on his own, not because someone else asked him to, and gives more of his side of the story.

I'm afraid if he carries on like this in future incidents, he'll risk being known less for his "law" regarding the ultimate outcome of online discussions, and more for general weaseling-out, backtracking, and dissembling.

The last sentence in particular is classic cult-like "with us or against us" crapola. And why add the "whom I pity" at the end, anyway? Completely unnecessary... it sounds like he's getting a little exasperated!

So Godwin comes out swinging

Apparently its bad to be a wikilawyer (except if it's him editing his own article). Also he want's us to believe that out of all the cases where the arbcom has undoubtedly royally screwed up, he chose this particular case to correct things.

Apparently the wmf lawyer considers wikipedians to be as stupid as most people here do if he expects people to believe this bull.

That would hardly be a surprise!

Godwin's Second Law: As a Wikipedia discussion involving inappropriate or abusive behavior by David Gerard grows longer, the probability of the whole thing being oversighted out of existence approaches 1.

Now, what Kelly Martin wrote in this post was:I could boldface the words "rumors" and "reportedly" and "open guess" for emphasis, but that shouldn't be necessary... It's fairly clear that this was not asserted so much as it was repeated, as Kelly apparently has a number of, well, informants.

Mr. Godwin also refers to Cade Metz as "inherently dishonest"... not the sort of thing he should be saying in either a personal or professional capacity. He might want to have them oversight that too!

Godwin is probably just upset that this has blown up into a bigger deal than he'd hoped - he clearly underestimated Dave Gerard's unpopularity with what Kelly calls the "new guard." Frankly, I don't think he's all that popular with the "old guard" either at this point, but ehh, who knows? Maybe they all get together for tea and tiddlywinks after school and plot the destruction of the civilized world. Very difficult to say with these people.

I have now actually seen the full email that Godwin sent to the ArbCom; it is substantially larger than what Cade quoted, and Cade's selective quotation of it (or perhaps the selective quotation that was provided to him by whomever leaked the content to him) was exceedingly unfair to Godwin. While I still think that Godwin is a piss-poor lawyer in general, and has serious issues with controlling his temper, his full comments to the ArbCom was actually quite good, and very much in line with the sort of things that most of the serious critics here on Wikipedia Review have expressed to be flaws with the ArbCom's way of doing things.

Godwin's initial email was reasonable; some of his followups, not so much. The ArbCom acted with consistent stupidity throughout.

As for Mike Godwin's pity, he can keep it for himself. It also seems to me that his commentary regarding both me and Cade Metz could be perceived as defamatory, and as such should probably be revdeleted, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

Godwin's prime salvo to the ArbCom was basically a reading of the riot act to the ArbCom, basically telling them that, as the attorney for their sponsor and hosting company, he cannot allow them to continue to appear to be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Despite his subsequent claims that he was not speaking as the Foundation's attorney at the time (which I believe to be a lie, or at least a willful reimagination of history, on his part, but only he can know the truth of that), the gist of his message was that the ArbCom, at the very least, needs to adopt the principle that its dispute resolution process must at least make some effort to afford fairness and due process. The implied threat (which Godwin may not have intended; he is, after all, very poor at controlling his temper, especially when aroused) was that if they do not, they will be replaced. I imagine that, given this, he is not very popular with anyone in Wikipedia's High Gudgeon. I suspect his greatest supporters, if the truth were fully known, would ironically be found here on Wikipedia Review.

Godwin also needs to work on his reading; I routinely speculate about matters where I only have incomplete information, filling in the blanks as best I can. This makes me wrong sometimes (as I was in this case, because I had incomplete information), but not all the time. You could, of course, choose to keep me more fully informed; that would avoid the need for me to speculate at all.

Besides the liability protection of Sec. 230, the other great thing about it is that it saves service providers a fortune in complaint department costs. If they know the only things they are responsible for are removing copyright violations, they only need to hire enough complaint department staff to handle those requests. If they didn't have Sec. 230, they'd need to hire enough staff to regularly monitor the goings-on at their site (think the level of staff required for watching for spills, fights, etc at a supermarket or department store). But, as soon as people realize they will occasionally come out if a person yells loudly enough, then everyone starts baying at the moon every time they have an issue, since they that at least it has been done once before and maybe they'll be lucky enough to get it again.

I remember thinking the same thing when Jimbo said he would review the Scientology banning verdict and being relieved weeks later when I realized he had probably forgotten it. I expect that nearly every WP:AE matter and ever WP:RFAR will now have something like this attached to it by the losing party indicating why they don't need to follow the decision since it has not been approved by the "highest power" that makes decisions on the site.

All the more reason why Wikipedia needs to adopt real, not-easily-mutable, processes that are firm and not subject to gaming, and to enforce them assiduously without remorse. Wikipedia's "marshmallow governance" means that there are no final decisions, ever.

Of course, taking the step to do that will almost certainly cost them "members of the community". But I suspect you'll find that most of those lost are not that productive. One of the things I've noticed about Wikipedia is that being effective in wikipolitics is more than a full time job. The people who will "lose" the most in a change to a more regulated, more streamlined system are exactly the people who are spending virtually every waking moment manipulating Wikipedia's community. As they are producing nothing of value anyway, losing their contribution is of no consequence, and by taking away their pet pastime they might actually be freed to return to content editing, which is (we can hope) the reason they joined Wikipedia in the first place.

A good part of that is software based. One of the reasons "ban" is interpreted to mean "no admin willing to unblock" is because it is impossible to block an account in such a way that no other admin can undo it (ok, stewards can lock them, but I'm pretending that doesn't exist). Other than a hierarchy of editors where the decisions of those higher up are binding both because they are higher up and because it isn't possible for lower level editors to undo them (think an office org chart), I don't really see any models out there that would work for a "not easily mutable process." And that would mean convincing people such as Everyking, Barberio, me, Lar, etc, that it is worth the risk of the "wrong" people getting in the binding positions of power and kicking out people they don't like simply because they can (then again, I am a pessimist in that I doubt there is a system of governance that both protects minority rights absolutely and operates in an expedient and reliable manner).