[WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

[Durova]

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/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive18#Matt_Sanchez

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 at aol.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.blogspot.com/