Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Aidan Work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reply to User:FreplySpang

Hello FreplySpang. Included in your "outside comment" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work you said there "is concern that some of these posts may verge on libel". There is no "may verge on libel" about it. This user's statement (that Tariana Turia tried to cause a bloodbath) is defamatory. If she felt so inclined she could take him to court in NZ where people read the defamation on Wikipedia while in their homes in NZ. In other words, the defamation was "published" in New Zealand. The author, living in NZ, has given his full name, has not denied authorship, cannot now deny authorship, has not retracted his statement, or apologised. He has stated his hatred for Turia. so there is malice aforethought as well. He doesn't have the defence "it is true" because he could never prove it is true. This could be very damaging for Wikipedia in terms of bad publicity (a la the Seigenthaler debacle). It has the potential to be the first case where a contributor is sued for defamation, made all the more newsworthy because he is not domiciled in the US, where the medium that carried the statement is domiciled. Turia is a MP in NZ, a former Minister. She could stand in Parliament and ridicule and tear Wikipedia to shreds to such a degree that it was newsworthy internationally. I think this guy needs to have a tight rein put on him before he does more damage. Moriori 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition his comments on Gerry Adams are definatively slanderous in Ireland, far from "verging on" but straight into the stage where saying them outside the Dail would be pretty much guaranteed to lead to prosecution. --Kiand 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both for spelling this out. I very much appreciate it, and I appreciate your concern for this important issue. I phrased my comment conservatively because I am unfamiliar with libel laws outside the USA. FreplySpang (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Coincidentally, did you see the news report today here about an Italian judge finding that cyclist Lance Armstrong must go on trial for defamation next year A lawyer successfully argued that even though Armstrong's comments were published in France, the act of defamation against fellow cyclist Simeoni occurred when Simeoni read the newspaper via the internet. Moriori 03:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. It certainly raises some large questions about Internet jurisdiction. FreplySpang (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Arbritration?

I'm a bit worried that Mr. Work will see himself as a maligned proponent of free speech, set upon by a bunch of Irish Republicans and LGBT Thought Police. In a reply to User:Jtdirl, he accused Jtdirl of being an Irish Republican - User_talk:Aidan_Work#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work.

Recently I received some advice from User:DESiegel, who is an admin and "interested in legal issues". Maybe he should be contacted to give his opinion on the potentially libellous comments attributed to Mr. Work?

Its a good point, even thou' the complaints are serious and substantial, we don't want to make him a martyr. Djegan 16:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Which is more important, the reputation of Wikipedia or the feelings of an editor who is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia? Which is more likely -- that if Work's defamatory and inaccurate statements are excised BY Wikipedia then that will enhance the reputation of Wikipedia, or it will damage the reputation of Wikipedia? Moriori 21:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Dont get me wrong, wikipedia is often too easy on editors who damage wikipedia and it is often all too difficult to do anything about it. Registration and contribution need to be relooked at and the "removal" of vandals needs to made more efficent and effective. Djegan 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I saught advice from DES as suggested above. He replied:

"The relevant policies are No personal attacks and civility. Strictly speaking, "Freedom of speech" does not apply, because this is not a government, nor a public forum. Wikipedia is a private project, albiet one that generally welcomes public participation. Its organizers have the right to set whatever policies they please on what speech is and is not acceptable on wikipedia, and to enforce those policies, as long as no laws are broken. Actual defamation can be illegal, or at least subject to civil suit, but mere name calling and expressions of opinion, however nasty, are not strictly speaking defamation. An RfC is a proper way to deal with this sort of junk, possibly followed by an arbitration hearing. A mention on WP:ANI might be appropriate, too. Thanks for calling this to my attention.
I should add, the above is not so much legal advice as advice on wikipedia policy. IANAL, although I have a strong non-lawyer's interest in free-speech law and US Constitutional law, as well as IP law."

Camillustalk|contribs 21:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consistent standards

The main accusation against this user (discounting a bunch of NPOV stuff on talk pages, which is neither here nor there, and some incivility, which is regrettable but I've seen much worse) seems to be his list of "People I hate", together with possibly actionable, and certainly offensive, comments on his user page.

I have to point out that until very recently one of the people certifying this RfC had pictures of "People I dislike" on his user page, describing the present Pope as a "homophobe", and stating that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld adopted policies "to line the pockets of their business friends". (That last comment is still on his user page.) I'd be very surprised if those comments were not actionable.

My point is neither a rather futile tu quoque, nor a complaint about the user page concerned, but an observation that if Aidan Work is to be slapped down for such things, then the standards must be applied consistently, or it will look disturbingly like a bunch of people with one agenda ganging up to browbeat someone with a different one. Vilcxjo 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, you want consistent standards. So, just as a defamatory statement about John Seigenthaler was removed from Wikipedia, then any defamatory statement about Tariana Turia should be removed as well. Agreed? Furthermore, as the author of the Turia defamation is not repentant, then he should be banned from editing until he assures Wikipedia that he will not repeat or create defamatory statements in the future. Would you agree with that too? I am surprised to see you (or anyone) say "a bunch of NPOV stuff on talk pages" is neither here nor there. It sure as hell is "here", alive and kicking in black and white for all to see. And if it is defamatory, it is actionable. Also, tu quoque may apply to one complainant here, but not all, so that doesn't lessen the efficacy of the damning evidence which has been presented against Work. There is also the point that although Wikipedia has had this defamation brought to its attention, it has allowed the publication of that defamation to continue, rather than excise it immediately.Moriori 20:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:NPOV makes clear that the policy applies to articles. It even says that POV material [my comment above should of course have read "POV", not "NPOV", but I think you guessed that] in an article may be removed to the talk page, so clearly the policy cannot apply to talk pages. So it is "neither here nor there" as far as reasonable complaint against this user is concerned. (Frankly, some of the complaints against him are pretty feeble. I've just watched a report on BBC's Newsnight which said far stronger things about Robert Mugabe than AW's run-of-the-mill comments.)
So let's stick to the substantive issue. And yes, of course I agree that libellous edits—whether in article, talk page or user page—are unacceptable, should be removed, and persistent offenders banned where necessary. (Did you misread my comments as a defence of defamation?) But yes, I do want consistent standards. There can be a degree of hypocrisy as to which edits stir up the wrath of the community. A good consequence of the Seigenthaler business would be if the almost casual libel of certain public figures, which I see repeatedly on talk pages and user pages, were to be universally regarded as verboten, absolutely regardless of the person involved. A bad consequence would be if it is used as a convenient justification for throwing the book at those whose prejudices offend majority opinion here, while continuing to turn a blind eye to equally defamatory material against "softer" targets. (George Bush, for example, is hardly likely to bother suing a WP editor, but that doesn't mean it should be acceptable to libel him here.) So by all means tell AW to straighten up and fly right, but let's make sure it isn't just a one-off action against an unpopular voice. Vilcxjo 02:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
What? WP:NPOV policy applies (only) to articles? Absolutely no way. Forget NPOV, the LAW applies to ANYTHING published anywhere on Wikipedia (to different degrees in different countries). Defamation is defamation is defamation, no matter where it occurs, or who authors it. It matters not one whit if the author is popular or unpopular, a professor or first year student. If he refuses to redress the defamation he authored on Wikipedia he must be disciplined, and asked for an assurance to never do it again. If we don't secure that pledge, and he does it again, what then? Let me hazard a guess - any editor taken to task in the future will yell "hey, you let Work get away with it so you have to be consistent and not pick on me"? Worse still, if we don't do that, then Wikipedia is on record as knowingly and deliberately not discipling a contributor who defamed someone on Wikipedia. Moriori 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, he HAS broken WP:NPOV, namely Wikipedia:POV fork, on a number of ocassions in the article space, so claiming NPOV is invalid in this case is just wrong. --Kiand 12:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
To the extent that AW has been in breach of WP:NPOV in articles (which is where it applies), then that is a reasonable complaint. But some of the evidence presented for this RfC is merely trivial (and yes, bigoted and unpleasant) POV talk-page nonsense which has been mis-stated as being in violation of WP:NPOV. This is an unnecessary distraction from the main issue: the problem of defamatory material, which must indeed be dealt with—as I have already said twice. (User:Moriori still seems to be labouring under the illusion that I am saying it's OK for AW to post defamatory material. I don't think he actually reads through what I write, which is making for something of a dialogue of the deaf.)
To repeat my whole point in starting this section: "the standards must be applied consistently, or it will look disturbingly like a bunch of people with one agenda ganging up to browbeat someone with a different one." Is that really controversial? I shall wait with interest to see whether the other user page to which I referred is made to remove similarly libellous assertions about some US politicians. "Sauce for the goose", etc. Vilcxjo 16:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
There are the deaf, and there are the blind. If disciplining an editor who has defamed someone on Wikipedia could look to some like "a bunch of people with one agenda ganging up to browbeat someone with a different one", then amen. I believe most people would see it for what it is - Wikipedia voluntarily righting a wrong rather than pandering to the feelings of someone in denial mode who is effectively saying he can write what he likes about people on Wiki. Regarding consistency, a defamatory statement about John Seigenthaler was removed from Wikipedia, but a defamatory statement about Tariana Turia remains. If you believe another user's page has similar defamatory comments, then feel free to do something about it. Incidentally, during this whole sorry affair I have not once mentioned Work's hate list which seems to be exercising you quite a bit. It is the defamation that worries me. Moriori 20:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a fair point (to Vilcxjo), and I think many of the examples quoted can be discounted as general unpleasantness which is not really actionable. However, it does seem that some of the comments about Tariana Turia are in a different category, i.e. those which accuse this person of incitement to violence and of racism. The examples quoted from JTD's user page can be defended as fair comment, as can many of the examples from Aidan's user page and the talk pages on which he contributed. However, it does seem to me that the Tariana Turia instances could be more serious. However, I should point out that I am neither a lawyer nor someone who knows anything about Tariana Turia. --Ryano 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between what was on my page and on Work's. Mine were expressed generally as personal opinions and did not make specific allegations against anyone (I was careful to do that) and so legally are fair comment. Work made an explicit claim about a specific incident involving a politician. That is defamation. Vil clearly does not understand what defamation is. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hope to goodness that your interpretation of the law is correct—in every jurisdiction where it might be held to apply (cf. Moriori's comment above re. Lance Armstrong)—otherwise it could have far reaching consequences for all of us. In an ever-changing legal landscape, it just doesn't seem to me to be worth the risk (no matter how gratifying it may be to give vent to one's personal frustrations on such matters), given that user pages are entirely peripheral to the basic purpose of WP. Vilcxjo 01:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In Jt's defence their is a big difference between "People I dislike" (because they are generally conservative in outlook - ) and "People I hate" (as in Aiden Works) (because they are nazis or because of their political or sexual outlook - I am not going to report the exact terms here for obvious reasons). If your not convinced review the relavent histories as I did - their is a world of difference. Djegan 20:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant policies

It is my view that WP:NPOV applies primarily if not exclusively to articles. Statements of opnion are, within reason at least, appropriate on a user page, and may well be appropriate on article talk pages. Similarly WP:V applies primarily to article pages, IMO. However WP:NPA applies particualrly to talk pages of all kinds, as well as to user pages, and WP:CIVIL applies (or should apply) to all pages on wikipedia.

I myself have strong political and persoanl opnions on many subjects. I have not chosen to, but could reasonably, give a short non-inflamatory summery of these on my user page, it might even be a good idea to allow others to discount any bias I may have. I try not to, and should not, allow those viww to affect my editing on wikipedia generally. All wikipediians should attempt to adhere to WP:NPOV in all article edits, and to at least have it in mind in making comments on article talk pages, IMO.

As I understand it, the dispute involves, among other things, creating POV forks of articles to support a particular position on the politics of Ireland in relation to the UK. That is a very contentious issue, and creating POV forks is a very bad idea. DES (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I should add that, as I understand the law, at least in the US, statements of opnion are not considered defamation, while purported statements of fact may be. I think that similar principles apply in other countries, but I am even less of an expert there than I am on US law. It is my view that, strictly speaking, we ought not to apply the legal restrictions of any country except that of the U.S. (where wikipedia is incorportate, Headquartered, adn has most of its servers.) Otherwise we could not have accurate coverage of many subjects. Turkey currently prosecutes discussion of the Armenian genocide that does not conform to its approved POV, for example, and under the laws of Germany i don't think we could have an NPOV article on Holocaust denial (which must of course include the views of the deniers). Many other countries have particular restrictions on publications which we should not IMO attempt to comply with. That said, statements which are clearly defamatory have no place on wikipedia, and statements which are even arguably defamatory and not properly sourced should not be in wikipedia articles, IMO. Note that in my view reporting notable defamatory statemetns verifiably made by named individuals is perfectly appropriate, as long as this is not done in a way that implies the approval or truth of those statements. DES (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As you may have missed them, here are my comments which started discussions on this page, and which are relevant to your comments here. 'Included in your "outside comment" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work you said there "is concern that some of these posts may verge on libel". There is no "may verge on libel" about it. This user's statement (that Tariana Turia tried to cause a bloodbath) is defamatory. If she felt so inclined she could take him to court in NZ where people read the defamation on Wikipedia while in their homes in NZ. In other words, the defamation was "published" in New Zealand. The author, living in NZ, has given his full name, has not denied authorship, cannot now deny authorship, has not retracted his statement, or apologised. He has stated his hatred for Turia. so there is malice aforethought as well. He doesn't have the defence "it is true" because he could never prove it is true. This could be very damaging for Wikipedia in terms of bad publicity (a la the Seigenthaler debacle). It has the potential to be the first case where a contributor is sued for defamation, made all the more newsworthy because he is not domiciled in the US, where the medium that carried the statement is domiciled. Turia is a MP in NZ, a former Minister. She could stand in Parliament and ridicule and tear Wikipedia to shreds to such a degree that it was newsworthy internationally. I think this guy needs to have a tight rein put on him before he does more damage.' And the following day, 'Coincidentally, did you see the news report today .... about an Italian judge finding that cyclist Lance Armstrong must go on trial for defamation next year A lawyer successfully argued that even though Armstrong's comments were published in France, the act of defamation against fellow cyclist Simeoni occurred when Simeoni read the newspaper via the internet.' I respectfully disagree with your comments that Wikipedia "ought not to apply the legal restrictions of any country except that of the U.S.", and, "Many other countries have particular restrictions on publications which we (Wikipedia) should not IMO attempt to comply with". We must comply with any and all legal restrictions that effect Wiki and/or its contributors IMO, no matter where they were promulgated. Moriori 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Then we differ. Editors should be aware of the laws of their own countries, and consider whether an edit might be in conflict with such law. But a policy not to allow any content that violates any law anywhere would effectively censor the wikik accordign to the simultanious, and incompatible, notions of the many jurisdictions that drastically restict free speech and publications in one way or another. Shall we restrict our coverage of China in accord with teh laws of the PRC? Shall we restrict our coverage of Turkish history in accorance with that country's laws. Shall we restrict sexual content and content discussing alcohol in accord with the laws of various islamic countries? I say clearly not. But we are getting rather far afield from the topic of this RfC.DES (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
We are not getting far afield from the topic of this RfC by any stretch of the imagination. The third sentence of his RfC says of his edits "Many of them are strongly libelous....."'. I thought it would be crystal clear by now that Wikipedia cannot publish defamatory information about anyone, anywhere. The John Seigenthaler saga should surely be a graphic enough warning of this. And yet you still infer that Wikipedia should not be subject to laws of foreign countries. Sorry. Wikipedia cannot make that choice. Does the Lance Armstrong example (above) mean nothing to you? I agree there are some mighty cans of worms out there, but the best way to deal with them is to not defame people on Wikipedia. Moriori 03:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You will note that I said above statements which are clearly defamatory have no place on wikipedia, and statements which are even arguably defamatory and not properly sourced should not be in wikipedia articles, IMO.. I am not arguing for a right to defame on wikipedia. But then, applying the laws of Florida and the U.S will prevent defamation, and without even resorting to questions of legality, defmatory content is pretty clearly against wikipedia policy, and so should not be included even if in some particular case it is not technically illegal (for example if the person is in the US, is a public figure, and the defamation cannot be proved to meet the Actual malice standard). There is really not a need to argue over whether statements "verged on libel" or "were clearly libelous", and whether they were libel under US law or only under the law of some other country. Defamatory statements, particularly unsourced defamatory statemens, do not belong on wikipedia, and posting them, particualarly in articles, is a violation of policy, or should be. It is your much more general statement that We must comply with any and all legal restrictions that effect Wiki and/or its contributors IMO, no matter where they were promulgated. to which i take strong exception. DES (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention blasphemy laws, which are on the books in several countries. We are to comply with them? Obviously not. -EDM 02:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You, (EDM and DES), might like to comment here. Moriori 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)