Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Seeing as how Mr. Hubley on his web site takes credit for one of 142.177.etc's trademark articles, I believe there is every reason to believe that Hubley and 142.177.etc are one and the same, unless there is some evidence to the contrary.
I agree with you. And the truth is an absolute defense in any libel case (even if not true, then any reasonable person would also strongly suspect a Hubley/142 connection given all the available evidence). My mentioning that 142.177 was Craig Hubley is not, as he likes to state, actionable libel and slander.
However, I must take issue with the implied suggestion some have made that we undertake to bombard Hubley with e-mail, phone calls, legal threats, and personal visits.
Who implied this? Lir came close, but I just don't see a clear connection between Lir's research and any advocacy to deluge Mr. Hubley or otherwise bother him. It was my impression that Lir was trying to make a point that now that 142 has been "outed" then we could (in a technical sense) do that. He did not say that we should do that and in fact indicated that the outing was bad because we could disrupt Mr. Hubley's life.
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.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
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