Your characterization of the Matt Sanchez fiasco is incomplete. Arbcom doesn't ban a person for a year over merely attempting to address BLP issues on their own biography.
Your characterization of the issue as "BLP violations" is an interpretation. Other editors saw the issues as not being violations at all, but rather consistent with our goal of presenting the evidence as it is.
This is not a good example of what you think you're trying to address. I fail to see why you think opening this can of worms is appropriate.
Matt Sanchez is a poster boy for duplicity in my opinion. Bringing him in here is not going to help your case.
Will Johnson
**************Mortgage rates drop to record lows. $200,000 for $1,029/mo Fixed. LendingTree® (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222653866x1201461148/aol?redir=http... p%3Fwhereto%3Dpromopagev3%26promo%3D00279%26loan%5Ftype%3D2%26source%3D28895 60%26esourceid%3D2889560%26800num%3D1%2D800%2D289%2D3915%26AdType%3D2)
Of course ArbCom doesn't ban someone merely for correcting BLP problems; no one suggests they did.
:The subject himself is no boy scout. When he gained attention a ghost from his closet emerged, and his attempts to deal with the resulting problems at Wikipedia were so counterproductive that he got sitebanned.
BLP problems did exist, though--very serious ones. For example, negative information was being sourced to non-notable forums where the harasser had impersonated the article subject.
The subject was trollable, and got trolled. Wikipedia should have been able to resolve that mess without so much wasted time on everybody's part.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Your characterization of the Matt Sanchez fiasco is incomplete. Arbcom doesn't ban a person for a year over merely attempting to address BLP issues on their own biography.
Your characterization of the issue as "BLP violations" is an interpretation. Other editors saw the issues as not being violations at all, but rather consistent with our goal of presenting the evidence as it is.
This is not a good example of what you think you're trying to address. I fail to see why you think opening this can of worms is appropriate.
Matt Sanchez is a poster boy for duplicity in my opinion. Bringing him in here is not going to help your case.
Will Johnson
**************Mortgage rates drop to record lows. $200,000 for $1,029/mo Fixed. LendingTree® ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222653866x1201461148/aol?redir=http...
p%3Fwhereto%3Dpromopagev3%26promo%3D00279%26loan%5Ftype%3D2%26source%3D28895http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222653866x1201461148/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.lendingtree.com%2Fborrower%2Falliance%2Ffrom.as%0Ap%3Fwhereto%3Dpromopagev3%26promo%3D00279%26loan%5Ftype%3D2%26source%3D28895 60%26esourceid%3D2889560%26800num%3D1%2D800%2D289%2D3915%26AdType%3D2) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----Original Message----- From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Of course ArbCom doesn't ban someone merely for correcting BLP problems; no one suggests they did.
:The subject himself is no boy scout. When he gained attention a ghost from his closet emerged, and his attempts to deal with the resulting problems at Wikipedia were so counterproductive that he got sitebanned.
BLP problems did exist, though--very serious ones. For example, negative information was being sourced to non-notable forums where the harasser had impersonated the article subject.
The subject was trollable, and got trolled. Wikipedia should have been able to resolve that mess without so much wasted time on everybody's part.>>
--------------------
Whether anyone had impersonated the subject or not is speculation without any evidence other than the subject himself.
That his bank account was "cleaned up" or whether it was even related to his article is again speculation without any evidence other than the subject himself.
Negative information was sourced as well to nationally syndicated radio talk shows. As you recall.
Matt is not an example of what you're trying to accomplish. He did not want his article removed (initially), what he wanted was a whitewash. However he went on record stating that he used to be a male prostitute. Investigations turned up his newspaper advertisements and his website advertising his sex services. Those were linked directly to his own address and phone number.
The world in which we actually live, is one in which most people can be tracked, knowing only a few pieces of data. This has occurred a number of times in-project and out, as you know.
No one makes your bed except you yourself.
Again this isn't a good example. I'm sure you should be able to find a better one.
Will Johnson
Negative information was sourced to talk shows in the form of copyvio rehostings on YouTube of uncertain veracity in violation of WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS. The editors who wished to use those talk shows were invited to obtain legitimate video or transcripts, and never did so.
Of course, as we all know digital information never gets manipulated in misleading ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimbogoesswimming.jpg
-Lise
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Of course ArbCom doesn't ban someone merely for correcting BLP problems; no one suggests they did.
:The subject himself is no boy scout. When he gained attention a ghost from his closet emerged, and his attempts to deal with the resulting problems at Wikipedia were so counterproductive that he got sitebanned.
BLP problems did exist, though--very serious ones. For example, negative information was being sourced to non-notable forums where the harasser had impersonated the article subject.
The subject was trollable, and got trolled. Wikipedia should have been able to resolve that mess without so much wasted time on everybody's part.>>
Whether anyone had impersonated the subject or not is speculation without any evidence other than the subject himself.
That his bank account was "cleaned up" or whether it was even related to his article is again speculation without any evidence other than the subject himself.
Negative information was sourced as well to nationally syndicated radio talk shows. As you recall.
Matt is not an example of what you're trying to accomplish. He did not want his article removed (initially), what he wanted was a whitewash. However he went on record stating that he used to be a male prostitute. Investigations turned up his newspaper advertisements and his website advertising his sex services. Those were linked directly to his own address and phone number.
The world in which we actually live, is one in which most people can be tracked, knowing only a few pieces of data. This has occurred a number of times in-project and out, as you know.
No one makes your bed except you yourself.
Again this isn't a good example. I'm sure you should be able to find a better one.
Will Johnson
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----Original Message----- From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Negative information was sourced to talk shows in the form of copyvio rehostings on YouTube of uncertain veracity in violation of WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS. The editors who wished to use those talk shows were invited to obtain legitimate video or transcripts, and never did so.
Of course, as we all know digital information never gets manipulated in misleading ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimbogoesswimming.jpg
-Lise>>
-----------------------------
Yes I agree that certain editors wikilawyered the situation to get their own way because that is the only way to suppress plain evidence. The audio was not a Copy vio it was posted with the approval of the owner. Matt never stated that it was not accurate, only that it was not the full program, but only a portion.
I really don't think that you want to trundle all of this history out here again. I am certainly able to remember in specific detail what occurred and didn't as well as you think you are. I don't think however this advances your cause whatsoever.
If this is the *sole* example you can come with, then you have a long memory for situations. And I would point out, that the examples we are looking for are examples where their was actual provable damage with evidentiary documentation.
Not examples of people trying to manipulate the project to seek attention and then realizing that they made a mistake and now want to go back into the closet once the skeletons are shown in daylight.
Will
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
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:13 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Negative information was sourced to talk shows in the form of copyvio rehostings on YouTube of uncertain veracity in violation of WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS. The editors who wished to use those talk shows were invited to obtain legitimate video or transcripts, and never did so.
Of course, as we all know digital information never gets manipulated in misleading ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimbogoesswimming.jpg
-Lise>>
Yes I agree that certain editors wikilawyered the situation to get their own way because that is the only way to suppress plain evidence. The audio was not a Copy vio it was posted with the approval of the owner. Matt never stated that it was not accurate, only that it was not the full program, but only a portion.
I really don't think that you want to trundle all of this history out here again. I am certainly able to remember in specific detail what occurred and didn't as well as you think you are. I don't think however this advances your cause whatsoever.
If this is the *sole* example you can come with, then you have a long memory for situations. And I would point out, that the examples we are looking for are examples where their was actual provable damage with evidentiary documentation.
Not examples of people trying to manipulate the project to seek attention and then realizing that they made a mistake and now want to go back into the closet once the skeletons are shown in daylight.
Will
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----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?
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
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.
Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say "I own the copyright, go ahead and host it"?
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 7:50 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say "I own the copyright, go ahead and host it">>
The person who uploaded the audio program, received permission to do so, from the copyright owner. That however isn't sufficient for wikilawyers who insist that the audio must be obtainable from an official website directly tied to the original program and that any transcript must come directly from the original copyright holder, etc etc etc. Certified, stamped, signed, and laminated.
The point Ken is, everyone familiar with this case, knows what the evidence plainly states. It's simply a case of trying to excise all the evidence IDONTLIKEIT so that the original underlying controversy is obscured.
Now people going to our article on Matt Sanchez, can plainly see that it's controversial for... something. They can't see quite what or why. However the self-defeating situation is that all you have to do is google for Matt Sanchez and you can read for hours all the controversy, which comes up on the first page! And yet our article says nothing on it whatsoever.
Utterly... pointless.
These threads would be much shorter if the links provided actually got read for the information they contain. ;)
The governing policy is linked from the opening post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_work...
Policy does not instruct editors to wait for a complaint, nor is it accurate to assert that no copyright violation has occurred until a complaint occurs.
Yet in all probability actual complaint did occur, because right after linking to the relevant policy the opening post also notes " Footnote 19 is no longer even functional because the copyvio material has been removed from YouTube." (that was as of 22 March 2008).
Now this is getting silly. I'm not going to continually repost the details of evidence already provided, simply to rebut false negative assertions that get put forward with no evidence at all. I supported Bluemarine's siteban because it was merited by his conduct; afterward I mentored him--that's no secret. Nor is it partisanship. Frivolous claims of bias are one of the reasons I've stopped accepting new mentorships. Which is sad for the people who honestly want to turn over a new leaf.
-Durova
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
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.
Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say "I own the copyright, go ahead and host it"?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----Original Message----- From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
These threads would be much shorter if the links provided actually got read for the information they contain. ;)
The governing policy is linked from the opening post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_work...
Policy does not instruct editors to wait for a complaint, nor is it accurate to assert that no copyright violation has occurred until a complaint occurs.
Yet in all probability actual complaint did occur, because right after linking to the relevant policy the opening post also notes " Footnote 19 is no longer even functional because the copyvio material has been removed from YouTube." (that was as of 22 March 2008).
Now this is getting silly. I'm not going to continually repost the details of evidence already provided, simply to rebut false negative assertions that get put forward with no evidence at all. I supported Bluemarine's siteban because it was merited by his conduct; afterward I mentored him--that's no secret. Nor is it partisanship. Frivolous claims of bias are one of the reasons I've stopped accepting new mentorships. Which is sad for the people who honestly want to turn over a new leaf.
-Durova
------------------------------------------
"Our policy" does not equate to "copyright violation". I'm sure you can see the logical fallacy there. Perhaps you meant "doesn't appear to adhere to our policy".
But we all know its a war of attrition. I chose to stop playing that game.
I know you know that "turn over a new leaf" doesn't apply to Mr Sanchez who "has announced his intention to write a book to be titled, Gay Jihad: What the radical homosexual movement has in store for you and your family" (Source: http://cplsanchez.info/)
And for those who want a refresher in what the evidence actually shows versus the gutted article we now have, you can still view my original write-up here, showing the bullet-proof evidence of Matt's past "career"
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matt_Sanchez
Will Johnson
The cplsanchez.info site is the impersonator's site.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:26 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
These threads would be much shorter if the links provided actually got read for the information they contain. ;)
The governing policy is linked from the opening post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_work...
Policy does not instruct editors to wait for a complaint, nor is it accurate to assert that no copyright violation has occurred until a complaint occurs.
Yet in all probability actual complaint did occur, because right after linking to the relevant policy the opening post also notes " Footnote 19 is no longer even functional because the copyvio material has been removed from YouTube." (that was as of 22 March 2008).
Now this is getting silly. I'm not going to continually repost the details of evidence already provided, simply to rebut false negative assertions that get put forward with no evidence at all. I supported Bluemarine's siteban because it was merited by his conduct; afterward I mentored him--that's no secret. Nor is it partisanship. Frivolous claims of bias are one of the reasons I've stopped accepting new mentorships. Which is sad for the people who honestly want to turn over a new leaf.
-Durova
"Our policy" does not equate to "copyright violation". I'm sure you can see the logical fallacy there. Perhaps you meant "doesn't appear to adhere to our policy".
But we all know its a war of attrition. I chose to stop playing that game.
I know you know that "turn over a new leaf" doesn't apply to Mr Sanchez who "has announced his intention to write a book to be titled, Gay Jihad: What the radical homosexual movement has in store for you and your family" (Source: http://cplsanchez.info/)
And for those who want a refresher in what the evidence actually shows versus the gutted article we now have, you can still view my original write-up here, showing the bullet-proof evidence of Matt's past "career"
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matt_Sanchez
Will Johnson
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----Original Message----- From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
The cplsanchez.info site is the impersonator's site.>>
-------------------------
Or its the site of a well-known journalist who was hounded off the project because he couldn't take the white-washing :)
And I mean actual, published in a print publication journalist.
All the claims that this person Charles Wilson has impersonated Matt, come only from Matt himself. The other party denies it. So there you go. You choose to believe one side over the other, and I choose to believe the side who is more credible.
(That's a wry joke.)
He did it! No he did it! In a courtroom the judge has to weigh the evidence and decide who is more credible and has the least to gain by lying.
I was wondering why this issue has suddenly cropped up again.
http://forum.cplsanchez.info/user/Discussion.aspx?id=104549
But at least it gave me the chance to review my write-up and correct a few links. But I haven't been following the continuing drama for a while now, Charles Wilson has more up-to-date details on the Sanchez Saga.
Will
On Jun 5, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Durova wrote:
The subject was trollable, and got trolled. Wikipedia should have been able to resolve that mess without so much wasted time on everybody's part.
The subject also actively trolled. Durova, I agree with you on BLPs, but Matt is ABSOLUTELY the wrong subject to use as an example. He was horribly aggressive, thoughtless, and mean. I support his topic ban and will continue to.
Philippe