QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 21st May 2010, 4:16pm)
I see that the
libel of my character continues unabated by this "Aphaia" (or "Britty") (or "Naoko Kizu"), the esthetician from Japan.
Even though I have had correspondence with the WMF and the Stewards list about this editor's libel, they have told me that oversight of this is not within the remit of Stewards with the "oversight" tool.
Greg, you might ask Guido to tone it down. Looking back, he continually poked the coals in this fire, "defending" you.
As to the oversighters, odd, isn't it?, that Moulton's comments describing what users had done on various wikis were considered so horrible that Jimbo himself deleted the pages, but actual libel, without necessity, is somehow to be ignored.
You were generally reasonable there, looking at the discussion, though sometimes you said more than was necessary... it makes the natives restless. It looks to me like there was a consensus to keep you listed as a speaker, which is why I've intervened. But what could be controversial still would be noting that you are blocked from some projects. "Banned" is a wikispeak construct that really means little more than indef blocked. If there were clear formal process for banning that showed true consensus, it might be different. But there isn't. Sometimes it's clear that genuine consensus exists, but when the "ban' comes from On High, that is sidestepped and cannot be discerned. And often a "ban" is just a handful of editors agreeing with no admin caring enough to disagree and unblock, risking the conflict.
Lar, and I think others, have argued that mentioning your block/ban status is acceptable if it is done evenly for all volunteer speakers. It's a simple, verifiable fact, and, I'd say, relevant, basic information. That's the kind of compromise that might be necessary to keep your listing. Do you have a suggestion for wording? You can email me or PM here.