Daniel Mayer wrote:
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Such a response would be ineffective and inconsistent with our core values.
I agree. But we can and should use that information to contact the authorities if Mr. Hubley's actions justify that.
I think we agree. As I have pointed out before, the various "authorities," such as they are, are unlikely to take much of an interest in the situation as it stands presently. Even when discussing the matter with an ISP, it is a difficult case to make that anyone in the world can edit Wikipedia, with no security limitations to speak of, except for Hubley and a relative handful of others. In olden times that story would have held up, but today's ISPs will take action against their own customers only in a few well-defined cases. With Michael we have a leg up because there is clear vandalism and a demonstrable intent to disrupt. 142's situation is, to an ISP unfamiliar with Wikipedia, more of a posting content dispute, in which they are unlikely to intervene. And as I have pointed out before, the supposed threats, libel, slander, and so forth just don't rise to the level that law enforcement consider actionable (IANAL). Oh sure, one of us could bring our own action at our own expense, but for what? At best you get a restraining order, and someone with a strong technical skill set and years of internet experience will cover their tracks, if motivated enough. Better to revert, delete, forget, move on. SoftSecurity carries the day.
Louis