In a message dated 5/19/2008 10:31:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, morven@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)
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.
That does seem rather excessive. I suspect there may be more to the situation that you're letting on (there usually is in cases like this) - how about a link?