In a message dated 5/21/2008 11:22:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
The mechanism for that is fairly straightforward - would you like for him to
come back and be free to continue to refer to Durova by her real name? If he
agrees not to, he's unblocked. Why would he not agree, except to preserve
his "right" to troll by refusing to honor her preference?>>
----------------
So you have a way to contact him directly?
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
And See Also
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#You_and_I_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#You_and_I)
my direct post to Durova since she asked for direct communication.
The issue in my mind isn't necessarily between Eleemosynary *and* Durova
which is why I didn't post to her directly. The issue is with Eleemosynary's
indef block (not ban).
It seems like the issue raised could be resolved, but the community must be
able to communicate with Eleemosynary in some fashion, which is why I
un-redir'd his talk page.
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
In a message dated 5/21/2008 10:01:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> You are mentoring Matt Sanchez ??? That is certainly news to me.
Wouldn't
> that mentoring imply that edits to his article would be proxy for a
banned
> user?
How on Earth does that follow?>>
-----------------------
OK I'll change my statement to "that *could* give the appearance that when
you make edits to his article you are editing in proxy for a banned user"
I would think, if nothing else, it would raise eyebrows, and form questions
in one's mind.
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
In a message dated 5/21/2008 2:08:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
I endorsed the Wikipedia
siteban of the same editor I'm mentoring on Commons, for instance.
But I did object to the obvious BLP violations that were occurring on
that page. Namely, editors had been attempting to cite non-notable
blogs, open edit forums, and copyvio YouTube videos as sources for
highly damaging information about the subject. In every instance
where I brought these issues to noticeboards for independent review,
the responses were solidly in my favor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Sanchez>>
---------------------
You are mentoring Matt Sanchez ??? That is certainly news to me. Wouldn't
that mentoring imply that edits to his article would be proxy for a banned
user?
----------------------------------
<<Per Foundation privacy policy and arbitration precedent, I have never
disclosed my real name onsite. The fact that my name is known offsite
is irrelevant: plenty of people have been indeffed for revealing names
that were known elsewhere on the Internet.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Privacy_policy>>
------------------
Yes I retract my previous assertion that Durova self-identified with the
person in that video, although here she clearly states that it's her. Actually
it was the video-editor who evidently posted the video who in the headline
identifies the person as Durova. In the video itself he mentions her real
name, and that's she is [was] an admin, but never mentions her handle. I had
never actually watched the video until last night.
---------------------------
Whjonson's recent actions have the appearance forum shopping in
attempt to rally political support and to damage my reputation. If he
wishes to dispel this appearance he may follow up with a post to that
effect and communicate directly with me in the future. Otherwise, if
a third instance occurs, his actions will compel me to seek formal
remedy. I bear no grudges; just raise your concerns directly.>>>
Hardly. I brought it up to the blocking editor, and after a brief
conversation, then brought it up here for further input into the situation. That's is
not forum shopping, it's an appropriate use of the tools available. Your
insinuation that I have a motive to *damage* you is unfounded in fact or motive.
My motive is merely to get Eleemosynary to rejoin the project. And to
devise a way that that can be accomplished. However your self-identification as a
mentor for an Arb-banned user -- Banned from all editing for one YEAR) is a
bit startling. Did I misunderstand you?
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
Apologies if this has been posted before, but I thought it was quite
interesting. Basically someone is planning to create a browser application
that will rate wikipedia articles for quality based on a number of criteria
(e.g. external links, length etc):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985096.html
#57
In a message dated 5/19/2008 10:31:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
What's missing from this discussion is why you're asking.
Is there an actual reason you want to be able to use her real name (or
anyone else's) - or is this simply a theoretical issue?>>
---------------------------------
There is a real editor, who after thousands of useful edits in-wiki is now
indefinitely blocked until he agrees to never mention Durova's real name again.
Whether or not such an agreement is useful to the project, the force used to
ensure the editor complies seems very heavy to me. Since Durova herself
named herself, it does not seem out-of-procedure that we *could* as well. That
is not the same as saying we *should* or we *must*, only that, if an editor
does so, since she did so herself and her interviewed still resides on YouTube
and she herself has evidently done nothing to have it removed, it seems
anti-project to indef a long-term contrib simply for that reason solely.
Durova and I have had our moments of disagreement, and our moments of
agreement. I have no problem with her using or not using her real name, or anyone
else doing so.
My sole radar-raising was about the method of forced compliance with
something that seems to me, gray.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
Soon after reading about all the controversy over whether a '70s
album cover on Wikipedia is "child pornography", I started watching
the '80s movie "The World According to Garp", which came up on my
Netflix queue. The opening sequence of this movie (and the
theatrical trailer also included on the DVD) depict a naked baby,
whose penis is clearly visible. So I guess Warners and Netflix are
peddlers of kiddie porn too.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
In a message dated 5/20/2008 12:30:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com writes:
Like I said, redirect itself isn't the issue. I am unhappy with how arbcom
works.
Also what makes you sure such a redirect won't be deleted on sight?
--------------
I am solely referring to the redirect issue, not the entirety of arbcom.
What makes me think that such a redirect won't be deleted on sight, is that
the vast majority of editors are reasonable thinking persons, not knee-jerk
reactionaries. I can however guarantee that if you refuse to try, you won't
get any useful result.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/20/2008 10:48:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com writes:
Oh yes... I have been DRing for *three* years. I *know* how frustrating DR
can be... This is exactly why I tried creating that redirect. Instead of
showing a tiny bit of sympathy, arbitrators tend to do the contrary in great
apathy.>>
---------------------------
Rather then repeat what happened, let's move forward.
Are you now willing to create a redirect, in the manner I suggested?
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/18/2008 9:26:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
Yes, but that makes absolutely no sense, so the solution is to slap
the arbitrator in question with a large trout. If you were talking
about making [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/XXX]] the redirect,
then the objection makes sense, but it doesn't make sense as an
objection to [[WP:RFAR/XXX]], since that's a space specifically for
shortcuts to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ space.>>
-------------------------
Go for it.
Be bold.
Let's see if you can make it work.
Will
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)