Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the WMF would like to be seen to be taking sides - could get nasty.
Fair point. However, if it's a clear case of harassment, I could see them being pleased to take sides. Especially for something basic like a restraining order, and especially if the money was donated with a clear set of guidelines.
People don't generally sue unless they think they have case (there are exceptions, of course) - if they think they're going to win anyway, they won't really worry about whether or not the editor can afford a good lawyer. I think editors generally know they would be supported if it got that bad.
I don't think that's true at all. Consider SLAPPs, for example.[1] The main purpose isn't winning. It's all about financial intimidation. That calculation goes on all the time in business lawsuits.
More directly related to us was the long-running Gregory Lauder-Frost drama. They certainly made a lot of sue-ish noises under very dubious legal theories. My clear impression at the time was that the WMF would not back me even a smidgen if I got sued, even for perfectly good edits.
I eventually contacted the EFF for a referral to somebody who could price out a defense for me. So I was definitely making calculation of "Do I love Wikipedia $10k-worth"? Perhaps the community would have helped, but I didn't expect it to be substantial. Luckily for me, although perhaps not Wikipedia, the article failed AFD number 4 after the subject's friends claimed he was ill, so I never had to find out.
William