Looks like libel to me!, Wiccan "priest" should be sued, or at least perma-banned Options

[Somey]

I just happened to notice this yesterday on the Administrator's Noticeboard:

This is going to sound odd, but has anyone thought to do a checkuser for Cox and Brandt? Admittedly, I mat be overly suspicious, but it would not be the first time I've seen a troll cause the very situation they're complaining about. Justin Eiler 22:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This statement is, quite simply, libel.

Diff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=84315709

And now archived at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...plagiarism_data

Apparently Justin is a Wiccan "priest" who's from Indiana, is a caring cat owner, and suffers from fibromyalgia. Other than that, though, there's little personal information on his user page.

Eiler could easily be sued for this, along with the Wikimedia Foundation for publishing the libel. The only defense he would have is that he "merely implied the possibility," rather than making an outright accusation. Either way, Eiler owes Brandt an apology, and the libelous material should be removed, immediately.

[JohnA]

Its what you get when you can't verify identities - endless paranoia about sockpuppets.

[guy]

A libel case would presumably be under Florida law, but I think that under English law it would not be libel. It is however a clear breach of [[WP:NPA]].

Actually, what is the position with the RfCU page? The requests are published openly, and may be there for days before they are dealt with. Is that libel?

[Somey]

A libel case would presumably be under Florida law, but I think that under English law it would not be libel. It is however a clear breach of [[WP:NPA]].

Maybe... But given that the background of this is that this user clearly implied that Brandt was editing Wikipedia as User:Jack Cox, and that Cox had already been banned for copyright violations, the connection is fairly obvious - Eiler is implying that Brandt is suspected of not only committing the violations, but also of entrapment, by arranging a scenario whereby the Wikimedia Foundation could be accused of publishing those violations, and doing so by fraudulent means. All of which is not only completely untrue, but the exact opposite of what's actually the case.

And, taken along with a long list of vulgarities, name-calling, and other accusations over the last few months, it would almost certainly be viewed as more than "a mere suggestion" by a US court. The only thing Eiler could claim in his defense is that it was a trivial incident and no real harm was done... And even that's debatable. He could also plead ignorance, but he wouldn't stand a chance on that score.

Actually, what is the position with the RfCU page? The requests are published openly, and may be there for days before they are dealt with. Is that libel?

Checkuser requests in general wouldn't be libelous, since the worst you'd be doing is accusing one anonymous avatar of being another. Even if you were accusing the avatar of being another user whose real identity is known, you're still only accusing the avatar of wrongdoing, and the avatar has no legal rights, for all intents and purposes. This is different - Eiler is falsely implying that a real person is using an anonymous avatar to violate copyrights, and that qualifies as libel.

[guy]

Checkuser requests in general wouldn't be libelous, since the worst you'd be doing is accusing one anonymous avatar of being another. Even if you were accusing the avatar of being another user whose real identity is known, you're still only accusing the avatar of wrongdoing, and the avatar has no legal rights, for all intents and purposes. This is different - Eiler is falsely implying that a real person is using an anonymous avatar to violate copyrights, and that qualifies as libel.

But suppose you're accusing an identifiable individual (someone with say name and photo on his user page) of committing sockpuppetry that breaks Wikipedia rules. He has legal rights.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Apparently Justin is a Wiccan "priest" who's from Indiana, is a caring cat owner, and suffers from fibromyalgia.

Note that, on the same day, this satirical article about Wikipedia arrives on the RSS feed, in which they refer to it as "Wiccapedia." Coincidence?

[Poetlister]

But suppose you're accusing an identifiable individual (someone with say name and photo on his user page) of committing sockpuppetry that breaks Wikipedia rules. He has legal rights.

I didn't.

[Somey]

But suppose you're accusing an identifiable individual (someone with say name and photo on his user page) of committing sockpuppetry that breaks Wikipedia rules. He has legal rights.

The individual has legal rights, but the crucial thing there is that sock puppetry on Wikipedia isn't illegal in the real world, at least not in itself. Therefore the issue is moot, since no crime has been committed. It would be treated as a "mere insult," and you can try to sue someone over a mere insult, but you won't get very far with it. (To say the least...)

In this case, though, Eiler clearly implied that Brandt may have been using a sock puppet account to violate copyrights, and that crosses the line.

Note that, on the same day, this satirical article about Wikipedia arrives on the RSS feed, in which they refer to it as "Wiccapedia." Coincidence?

I sure hope not!

[guy]

The individual has legal rights, but the crucial thing there is that sock puppetry on Wikipedia isn't illegal in the real world, at least not in itself. Therefore the issue is moot, since no crime has been committed. It would be treated as a "mere insult," and you can try to sue someone over a mere insult, but you won't get very far with it. (To say the least...)

I don't know about Florida law, but that's certainly not the position in England. Here, you sue for damage to your reputation. Adultery is not illegal, but accusing somebody of it might well damage their reputation.

[Somey]

I don't know about Florida law, but that's certainly not the position in England. Here, you sue for damage to your reputation. Adultery is not illegal, but accusing somebody of it might well damage their reputation.

In most (if not all) states in the USA you can sue for damage to your reputation too, but if you expect to actually win a significant monetary settlement, you pretty much always have to prove substantive harm - usually in the form of lost income, "personal losses" (such as divorce or abandonment), or direct psychological harm. I don't believe anyone has ever successfully sued anyone else in the US for damage to reputation suffered as a result of activity on a mostly anonymous website. Brandt seems to have a pretty good shot at it, easily the best I've seen, but even in his case it's going to be hard to prove substantive harm. (By contrast, he'll have a much easier time IMO demonstrating that Wikimedia Foundation is a publisher, and not a service provider.)

The fact is, you can try to sue for just about anything. Someone once tried to sue the International House of Pancakes for $1.2 billion because the particular franchise they went to wasn't participating in a nationally advertised special price promotion. They didn't win, but someone did successfully sue McDonald's not too long ago for giving her a cup of coffee that was too hot, which she then spilled on herself. These are all well-known incidents, used by the right wing as examples of why the US needs "tort reform," when in fact the right wing really wants to eliminate the rights of individuals to sue organizations. They want that for obvious reasons, namely that they don't like to lose money - and the laws are currently in the individual's favor to some extent, even if the reality of huge legal fees, and elaborate disclaimers on virtually everything imaginable, make it difficult and costly to actually win a lawsuit. Either way, the atmosphere of "we must ban these 'junk' lawsuits" has made it much more difficult to be taken seriously by US judges, in cases where substantive harm is difficult or impossible to prove.

I could go on like this for hours, but I've got to go get some pancakes and coffee...