I didn't do that quite right, he also quoted a post by Eric:
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
If we take our role as an encyclopedia seriously, then these externalities are irrelevant. I would be deeply concerned about the kind of precedent where a sufficient amount of noise alone guarantees the removal of information. Now it may be Daniel Brandt, tomorrow, some strange religious group nobody has ever heard of, then some litigious video game lawyer .. this is the wrong way to look at the problem and could seriously damage our usefulness. And if you think that you can actually close this issue by deleting Brandt's article, you've apparently not followed the debate after the last speedy deletion attempt.
I'm already concerned that we have a thin skin when it comes to legal threats. I want us to develop a legal strategy where we have the confidence to stand up against bullies and kooks, rather than folding as soon as we get a nasty letter. But that also means that we have to take more responsibility to ensure that all our BLP processes are working -- including stable version tagging, and so on.
I can understand the notion of an "opt-out" for borderline notability, but I've come to the conclusion that this cannot be implemented in a reasonable fashion. The only thing that I see viable is that the subject's wishes are, by policy, one factor to be taken into account in an AfD. That doesn't mean they necessarily outweigh the interests of the encyclopedia, but that the people debating the issue ought to make a judgment call about it. Then let the chips fall where they may.
I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned me a couple of days ago. I had asked that my article be deleted, along with the Talk pages, and my User and User_talk pages too. I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, and never have been, apart from my desire and need to comment on why I objected to that article on me, in whole and in part.
I ask that Mr. Wales reconsider. If the article still exists several weeks from now, I will formally appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Since Erik is a trustee (at least until June), he may have a chance to cast his vote on this issue at that time. If the Board declines to get involved, then this will introduce an additional level of confusion over the distribution of power and responsibility within Wikipedia.
Since the structure of Wikipedia has a direct bearing on the content offered by Wikipedia, this distribution of power has legal implications. Let me put it bluntly: While it may be true that the Foundation Board of Trustees does not seek to shape content apart from its control over moderation privileges through the software it develops and the servers it owns, it is still true that the Board has the power to summarily delete content. Failure to do so is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board is made aware of the situation. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. If it is a matter of dispute, then this is what I hope to clarify someday in a court of law.
Erik thinks very highly of Wikipedia's mission, and feels that the topics it chooses to cover should enjoy sanctuary from outside interference -- Wikipedia exists in the wonderful world of cyberspace, where real-world laws don't apply. The only concession he makes is that the subject's wishes are "one factor": the victim gets to say some final words before execution.
That is not a realistic point of view. It is especially unrealistic given the fact that hordes of anonymous editors, many of them underage, are creating Wikipedia's content, and can change it at any time.
It was pointed out by another that I'm neither powerful enough nor rich enough to give Wikipedia any trouble, and therefore it follows that Wikipedia should ignore me. As pathetic and immoral as this viewpoint may be, it is the logical extension of Erik's position. If Erik is wrong, it's the death of Wikipedia in the short-term. And if Erik is right, it's still the death of Wikipedia, but now perhaps in the longer-term.
I think Mr. Wales should delete my article, with the understanding that in this case he is acting for the Board. It would save everyone a lot of trouble.
-- Daniel Brandt