[Wikipedia-l] since we are on legal matters ...

Wed Nov 26 23:47:25 UTC 2003

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>tc wrote:
>
>>But I'll try to believe that his actions 
>>are merited by his good-intentioned but 
>>unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on 
>>behalf of 142 and not based on a goal of 
>>censoring anything written by 142.
>>
>It is not a matter of me censoring anything. He has
>already been hard banned so everything he writes is in
>violation of that ban and should be removed from the
>top edits of articles. Not doing so invalidates the
>ban and implicitly gives permission to everyone that
>the activity that the user was banned for is at worst
>OK and at best not something we try to stop. 
>
The issue of whether 142 should be banned is not being questioned.  The 
debate is about three articles on Meta that Anthère considers worth 
keeping and improving based on their contents.  Mav has said himself 
that 142 has made more contributions to Meta than anyone else, so we're 
talking about only 3 articles out of a large number.  Let's not take 
this will to purge the project of anything related to 142 to the point 
of being monomaniacal.  I'm confident that if given enough time Anthère 
will be able to edit the article so that it no longer resembles what 142 
wrote.  Give her a little room to work.

The argument of protecting 142's copyrights is laughable.  He is after 
all still an anonymous user. Anonymity does not override a person's 
copyrights, but it makes proving them that much more difficult.  Can he, 
as whatever legal person claims those copyrights, prove that he is the 
same person that we know under a numercial synonym.  Furthermore, if and 
when he gets to the point of issuing a take-down order (with which we 
would be most willing to comply) the article(s) in question may no 
longer resemble what he put there in the first place.

Ec