102,819
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to searchno edit summary
<center>The [[justice]] that governs genuine [[public]] space is never administered by persons using fictitious 'usernames'. [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rob_Davis Rob Davis]</center>
<center>The [[justice]] that governs genuine [[public]] space is never administered by persons using fictitious 'usernames'. [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rob_Davis Rob Davis]</center>
----
==Pastordavid's dialogue==
==Daynal==
Dear Pastordavid,
Would you find it more comfortable discussing here the public display of what is described as an 'archived' page where your charge of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Daynal Sockpuppetry] was sustained against [[user:Daynal]]? If the page should be really archived as was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timothy_Wyllie/Archive_1 'discussion'] of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Wyllie article] that apparently offended your personal beliefs, we can agree to let this 'lie'. Gratefully, Rob Davis --[[Special:Contributions/72.250.232.242|72.250.232.242]] ([[User talk:72.250.232.242|talk]]) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
:Ah, you ascribe to me sensitivities that I am afraid I do not posses. I am not offended in the least. In fact, the SSP page is indeed archived just the same as the talk page in question - both are still viewable by the general public, as shown by your ability to view both of them. Neither of them, however, has been [[WP:DELETE|deleted]]. You are welcome to persue deletion for them ... I would guess that asking at [[WP:MFD|misc. for deletion]] would be the right place. I would not, however, expect the deletion of either to be likely. And if you feel, as you continue to insinuate, my particular background produces an undue bias or conflict of interest in either my editing or my use of the administrative tools, you are encouraged to file a report either at [[WP:RFC|requests for comment on user behavior]] or at [[WP:ANI|the administrators' incident noticeboard]]. Thanks. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid#top|talk]]) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
::Dear Pastordavid, Thank you for your reply! It is not sensitivities you possess, but rather the appearance of such that is suggested by your interjection into what was otherwise an evolving dialogue addressing issues raised by the article in question. That dialogue was silenced by the sustained accusation of using a 'sockpuppet' to evade compliance with Wikipedia policies. Deletion is not what is sought, far from it, but discussion of the perception of wrongdoing is, and such discussion must begin with the 'plaintiff' that you are in this virtual 'case' and myself who would otherwise be the 'defendant'. Obviously, such legal descriptors are inappropriate in a private environment, but the appearance of due process is suggested by the legal terminology utilized in this venue. I would suggest however, that two human beings capable of penetrating mere perceptions to probe the truth of any matter would be far more conducive to the collegial atmosphere sought at Wikipedia than any 'legal' pretensions could realize. Are you amenable to such? Gratefully, Rob --[[Special:Contributions/72.250.232.242|72.250.232.242]] ([[User talk:72.250.232.242|talk]]) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Very well. The disinclination to dialogue sustains the appearance you otherwise forswear. Rob--[[Special:Contributions/71.125.97.151|71.125.97.151]] ([[User talk:71.125.97.151|talk]]) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
::::No. What it sustains is the limited amount of time I am available online right now given real life responsibilities. Patience. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid#top|talk]]) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::Gladly! Genuine dialogue is well worth the wait and work.--[[Special:Contributions/74.223.63.66|74.223.63.66]] ([[User talk:74.223.63.66|talk]]) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Rob
Rob, please have a look at [[User:Pastordavid/Daynal|this unblock proposal]]. Let me know if you are interested. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid#top|talk]]) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
:Hello Pastordavid, Looks like a reasonable solution, but before we proceed, I would like to know a few things about Wikipedia that have been brought to mind by your original accusations using the term 'sockpuppet', once was a delightful term of endearing innocence, but now synonymous with deceptive practices of virtual sabotage on Wikipedia.
#Is Wikipedia so preoccupied with fraud, vandalism, and malicious actions of mean spirited persons to preempt the need to inquire with any apparent offender directly before bringing a virtual 'court case' against innocent, unsuspecting persons whose only desire is to contribute to a culture where sharing is valued above all else?
#What criteria operates whereby usernames officially representing organizations are approved and disapproved by Wikpedia?
:Looking forward, Rob aka--[[Special:Contributions/68.238.123.94|68.238.123.94]] ([[User talk:68.238.123.94|talk]]) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
::Rob, there is a long history behind the policy of [[WP:SOCK]], much of which occured long before I arrived here (the conversation about the practice begins really around the spring of 2004). Suffice it to say that wikipedia's visibility, combined with the easy accessibility, makes it prone to disruption. One particular way to be disruptive, is to register multiple accounts, and have them operate simultaneously -- quite simply, persons with multiple accounts (except for in certain, well-defined situations) are usually being intentionally disruptive - and so multiple accounts are not allowed. It may be helpful to understand the rationale, but the bottom line is that it is one of the accepted norms of this project, and to take part in the project on must be willing to uphold it. In regard to the "preoccupation" with such things, not that there are millions of visitors to wikipedia each day, and any one can edit wikipedia - and so it takes a dedicated effort to keep the vandalism in check.
::As to "usernames officially representing organizations", see [[Wikipedia:USERNAME#Company.2Fgroup_names|this policy page]]. In short, they are always ''discouraged'', and beyond that are handled on a case by case basis. Another admin deemed that your editing habits were a bad combination with the username. The process would then be for me to unblock the [[User:Daynal]] account, and walk you through the changing username process. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid#top|talk]]) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Pastordavid:
Thank you for this as I understand well how security issues loom large proportionate to the profile of any 'target' and relative to the culture in which it functions. The username policy is understood given that 'defense' of integrity in the context of a civilization learning to be 'civil' will necessarily injure innocent parties, but case by case basis review, even if requiring lavish exposure over time for authentication purposes, is the requisite price for security in an insecure world.
Gratefully,
Rob--[[Special:Contributions/74.223.63.66|74.223.63.66]] ([[User talk:74.223.63.66|talk]]) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
==Unblock?==
<!-- DO NOT EDIT THE "----" NOR THE </div> KEEP THEM WHERE THEY ARE. REMEMBER TO SIGN! USING FOUR TILDES -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT THE "----" NOR THE </div> KEEP THEM WHERE THEY ARE. REMEMBER TO SIGN! USING FOUR TILDES -->
