-----Original Message----- From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 3:54 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
It is to be hoped that Wikipedians can hold a mailing list conversation without inflicting further unwarranted damage upon the reputation of a living person. In fact the copyvio YouTube hostings were upheld as such at arbitration enforcement, and resulted in topic bans for two editors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitra...
That decision withstood scrutiny including an appeal directly to ArbCom itself. Nobody wikilawyered to achieve that outcome, and nobody suppressed anything. In fact, the appeal to AE was delayed a month to give time to obtain transcripts. AE was a last resort after offers of BLPN and RSN were refused. The requesting post at AE only only asked for removal of the violating material, and an uninvolved administrator stepped forward to topic ban.
So far, no evidence has been forthcoming that the biography subject manipulated Wikipedia to seek attention. If anyone on this list has evidence that he did, please do not reply here but send it to ArbCom and cc me. If the evidence is credible I will terminate mentorship and the Committee will take appropriate actions.
-Lise>>
-------------------------
I'm glad that you acknowledge that you are or were mentoring this subject. It's good to have the facts laid on the table.
I still fail to see why you, who don't want to "inflict further damage" bring this subject up, yet again. If by further damage, you mean, re-report what credible sources state, then there is no way to come to any agreement.
ArbCom did not "uphold copyright violation" because there was no copyright violation. No person, holding copyright, ever complained about anything. What occurred was simply silence. The owner of the copyright has not now, nor ever had any problem with the audio being hosted from the radio program.
That is not "upholding" anything. Silence is not uncharacteristic of a situation where experienced editors, including admins, fought with vicious tools to silence any objections *before* the committee even reviewed the situation.
The Matt Sanchez fiasco was quite possibly one of the most outrageous abuses of Wikipower I've ever encountered in my years in the project. A few people with power effectively suppressed and silenced editors who were attempting to reach and had reached compromise language. The suppression was accomplished by back-door private emailings in which particular editors were singled out to be harassed off the project, and this was done by persons who had the power to effect their goal.
If you don't want to "inflict more damage" than I suggest you drop it and move on. Your memory of what occurred and mine are evidently quite remote from one another.
Are you willing to drop it?