New Legs for Phil, Signpost points finger Options

[Skyring]

The Wikipedia Signpost has an article on incidents in the lives of two admins under the headline "Muddying Sandifer":

Wikipedia Administrator Phil Sandifer was briefly investigated earlier this month after a short fictional story he wrote was submitted to University of Florida police. The incident, which Sandifer suspects was initiated by a user he had previously blocked, led to the creation of an article on Sandifer (subsequently deleted after a successful AfD), and renewed questions about a Wikipedia criticism site where such a threat was hinted at.

An interesting point is that Snowspinner came out of the closet, revealing his IRL name, and Katefan0 swung the other way.

[Sgrayban]

Katefan0 violated her journalist ethics and code of conduct and failed to report her online activities with her employer which is required by US. Federal Law to keep her Senate Press Gallery pass.

Just because she left does not clear her of those charges and she can very well be fired and investigated by the US. Congress Ethics commitee for her involvement on Wikipedia.

She played a game and she lost plain and simple. Wikipedia admin just refuse to grasp the seriousness of this. Its not something to be proud of.

[blissyu2]

Wow, that Wikipedia Signpost article sure does demonise this forum.

Does it count as libel though? It'd be an interesting question. Was there libel? If there was, where did it originate? With Cory Doctorow, who wrote the first false story about Wikipedia Review, when writing for Boing Boing? Or with Phil Sandifer? Or with this article?

By this stage, the defamation has already taken place. Whilst there is an argument that this escalates it further, it is difficult to say it. The defamation must be the first incident, and hence if there was to be a suit for libel, it would be against Cory Doctorow. Whilst Phil Sandifer could be named in that suit, it would primarily be against Cory Doctorow.

Then we need to get in to an important part in the criteria for libel, that of financial loss. Did Wikipedia Review suffer any financial loss over this? Well, if this site was shut down, we could argue yes, to a minor level. But overall probably not. And whilst it probably does make people on Wikipedia more anti-WR than before, people outside of Wikipedia are probably more pro-WR, as they can clearly see the censorship against it. So is there really damage done?

And then of course we have to argue that what was posted here was untrue.

Suggesting that Lir might be responsible is inappropriate and is not based on any sort of reality, so that may be an issue relating to libel. Lir didn't even post in that thread, and is quite unlikely to have called police. There were also a variety of other users who were blamed, including Daniel Brandt, Orthagonal, Selina and Hushthis. This in effect acts as a part of the falsehood of claims, since it makes such broad statements.

Also suggesting that people hated the forum generally is probably untrue.

It would be an interesting case, and it would be interesting to see what people would think with regards to whether this is libel or not. Its not an obvious case either way, and a case could be put forth both ways. Perhaps a good topic for some law students to analyse.

[Donny]

Wow, that Wikipedia Signpost article sure does demonise this forum.

No, it doesn't. It mentions Wikipedia review in the following sentences:

However, other administrators indicated that other users from a Wikipedia criticism site may have been involved. Daniel Brandt first suggested contacting UF officials on Wikipedia Review earlier this month. The tip raises questions about Wikipedia Review, the same week that administrator Katefan0 left the project, after Brandt threatened to contact Katefan0's employer regarding her work on Wikipedia

All that says is that it "raises questions about Wikipedia Review".

[Daniel Brandt]

This just in:
The author of that article, who is also the editor of The Wikipedia Signpost, is all of 16 years old. I cannot write to the editor and defend myself because Wikipedia will accuse me of harassing a minor.

[Sgrayban]

This just in:
The author of that article, who is also the editor of The Wikipedia Signpost, is all of 16 years old.

That doesn't surprise me at all. The either have kiddies for admin or sexual deviants for admin.

Birthday:
15th March 1990

[Lir]

Lir reputation might be injured by the false accusation, Lir is an identifiable person and the false accusation is attributed to none other than Phil Sandifer.

I agree, my case with Wikipedia has been one false and unfounded accusation after another -- what can I do about this? It wasn't me, so how can I get Wikipedia to stop spreading lies about me? Can I force the local police in Snowspinner's district to state that there is no evidence that I had anything to do with it whatsoever? Hey, it took months for Siegenthaler to get his name cleared, but what about ordinary people? Yes, the article only says "Lir" -- but other places at Wikipedia clearly state that Lir is me, so their use of Lir is a direct reference to me, and its completely fallacious and unfounded. I'm serious, what can I do about it?

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Wikipedia Review, or any of its members, had anything to do with this issue -- everyone has simply assumed that someone here did it, but there is simply no evidence of that at all. Quite simply, the person who contacted the police may have had genuine concerns about Snowspinner, and not have even known what Wikipedia is. Of course, in slandering this forum, Wikipedia will claim they are only reporting the news, about how Snowspinner 'believes' it was someone from this forum -- but they are emphatically not merely reporting the news, they are waging a propapaganda smear campaign.