This diff shows Durova teaching me policy lessons.

Comments? Catcalls?

Please refactor

Seriously, that Matt Sanchez case is going to end badly for all concerned. Sanchez is already on a pretty impossible tack, trying to erase the fact that he participated in professionally released gay porn movies, even though anyone can see that he has simply by visiting the adult section of their local video store. That, plus his obvious Republican conservative POV agenda, makes for a pretty explosive case.

If WP bans him, they're going to pay for that in the real World press, since this guy has some pretty solid contacts in the right-wing bloggers community, not to mention actual press contacts. Since he's pushing this "I'm NOT GAY, but I am a PROUD AMERICAN MARINE" agenda, there's no way to settle this to his satisfaction. The only way out would have been to delete the article or provide an opt-out. With this Arb-com case, they simply cannot win here.

Now, the last time I looked anyway, I don't seem to remember there being any articles about "Porn Stars" in Britanica. And if you refactor (to steal Miz Durova's phrase) out the porn star business, you're simply left with a conservative blogger of questionable notability (he's only become notable since it was found that he had a gay porn past, in spite of being in the Marines...."don't ask, don't tell" doesn't say anything about "don't rent their videos either"...). I really don't see why this person should have had an article in the first place...

Please refactor after walking a mile in my moccasins.

Seriously, the trouble is that the prohibition on sharing personal correspondence is being applied in such an obviously cabal-serving and hypocritical way, so obviously that no third party can take the moral claims seriously.

Didn't Durova herself post somebody's e-mails to the main mailing list around the time of the !! fiasco, then apologize, saying she'd meant to send them to the now infamous "sooper sekrit" list?

Didn't Elonka herself manipulate Krimpet into posting a certain contributors' real world identity onto Wikipedia?

While the e-mails which have been suppressed in the name of privacy contained no private information at all, but were only agitating against others.

Meanwhile, exposing pseudonymous editors' real world identities, once thought unacceptable, is not only tolerated, but encouraged and practiced by arbitrators themselves, who solicit, cherish, curate and publish attack farms against their own contributors.

I was shocked when I discovered that Elonka had actually gotten the tools last month. She's got a COI a mile long herself...

Anyway, this Matt Sanchez business deserves to be discussed outside of Durova and Elonka's antics, so I've started a discussion here.

You are in violation of our policy about commenting off-Wiki about on-Wiki activities in a derogatory fashion which insinuates or otherwise shows bias towards personal criterion.

Please refactor and request oversight for all previous comments you have made off-Wiki since the age of 4. Otherwise you can be indefinitely blocked from things like tea, orange cookies and women's shoes.