Talk:Public speakers

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Contents 1 Progress or consensus? 2 Talk page or IRC? 3 Other modifications... 4 Should speakers be self-described, community-described, or cabal-described?

[edit] Progress or consensus?

Have we actually made any progress or gained consensus about how this page should develop, moving forward? -- Thekohser 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I !vote "weak delete". It serves no useful purpose, as nobody (of any perspective) is going to get a gig from it, and it's a drama-magnet (sigh - to be pedantic, I really mean that even though it is in theory conceivable in an abstract sense that someone someday might speak somewhere on account of the page, the actual chance of that happening is so remote, that the present value of flaming the page generates, far outweighs that miniscule potential). -- Seth Finkelstein 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus and there is unlikely to be some. GerardM 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we're stuck. Suggest someone less involved (that is, not Kohser, Gerard, myself, etc) try reading over what we have said, and just boldly edit in something that takes all concerns on board and see if it sticks. The notion of a review process (tempered by common sense) seems to make sense to many. The notion of guidelines about what should and shouldn't be included, seems to make sense to many. Heck, if we just went forward with Guillom's disclaimer that would be goodness, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're stuck all that badly, just needing something along the lines of what Lar says above.

I think there's a possible solution along the lines of (1) changing the structure of the chart, for instance to include a column for "community sanctions" (or just to block logs on relevant sites), and (2) outlining a general rule for community commentary (e.g., that if 3 or more people agree that a certain fact should be disclosed, that it should be included in the list).

So, if John Doe wants to be included, but has been blocked on en.wikinews a couple times and had a couple public shouting matches with other prominent members of that community, (1) the blocks would be included in the relevant column, and (2) assuming 3 people think it's significant enough to include, the listing would have a simple 1- or 2-sentence, factual description of the dispute.

I offer that up as a general framework, and invite adjustments to the specifics. -Peteforsyth 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like the worst possible idea to me. Guido den Broeder 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Guido, can you explain why it's a bad idea? You said this above:

"When I organize a discussion, I often ask two speakers, one on either side of the argument. A single speaker who only wants to promote something is not very captivating. Therefore, the list should accomodate speakers with a wide range of views. Some kind of categorization on this page, and/or informative text, would then help the reader select speakers for an event. If there are just names and affiliations, the list won't be used often."

My suggestion is intended to be in line with that: providing the reader with useful information that will help them make a selection from the list. What are the aspects of my suggestion that make it the wrong approach? And, what's a better way to accomplish your stated preference (which is something I wholeheartedly agree with)? -Peteforsyth 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not in any way informative, and their mention serves only to diminish the person. Useful information would be a few lines about the speaker's general take on Wikimedia projects, and their prefered topics. The speakers can best provide that info themselves. Guido den Broeder 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Guido, I think you're right, that was a hasty and poor suggestion on my part. Many, or even most, blocks are very routine, and really don't do much to shed light on an editor's background. But some reflect genuine tensions in the community, and it's helpful to someone seeking a speaker to know what they're getting into.

However, sanctions that come from official bodies after extensive processes (e.g. ArbCom bans or other sanctions) are more significant than blocks, and are informative about a person's history with the community they're offering to speak about. What do you think of requiring people to disclose such actions here, if requested by others in the community? There could be a lot of leeway in "disclose" -- it could be anything from a link to the decision, to a one-sentence description by the subject. -Peteforsyth 19:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And to address the other part of your point: maybe "requiring" things is not the right approach. Maybe we should be considering somethign more like a guideline: "When adding yourself to the list, it's requested that you disclose any significant disputes you have been involved in, especially any that resulted in official sanctions."

Or yet another option: in the absence of either of those, we could flesh out the introductory text (probably a good idea regardless) and give a disclaimer, including something to the effect that some of the people on the list may have a history of contention on various WM projects. -Peteforsyth 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some unhelpful comments by various users removed, Guido den Broeder 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I think you trimmed too much but OK... :) So with those gone, can we get back on track and move this to resolution? ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pete, a disclaimer sounds like a good idea to me, rather than to rekindle the drama that is already in the past. Guido den Broeder 09:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

given the fact that the discussion and the opinion no longer represents how people see this issue, a consensus would be achieved that is no longer representative of the positions taken. When these positions are considered to be "unhelpfull", it can be easily considered to be pov pushing. I see it as such. Thanks, GerardM 06:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Guido den Broeder 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, I do declare that we are "stuck" and that the content page is organized as it ever shall be, or in close approximation to how it currently stands. Pretty much agreed? -- Thekohser 02:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we've returned to about 4 or 5 page views per day, so all that former drama surrounding my various improvements to the layout and composition of the page seems to have been wasted energy. -- Thekohser 16:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page or IRC?

In determining the consensus for how this Meta page should be handled, we seem to have a group of seasoned Meta editors who want the Talk page to be the focus of that discussion, while we have a new group of editors who seem to think that an IRC chat is going to be the new focus of discussion. I am confused. Are we supposed to use the Talk page, or IRC to gain consensus? -- Thekohser 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to conclude, not just from this page, that meta, too, has now been overrun by wikitoddlers. I see hardly any normal communication anymore, but more and more people that are only out to hurt their fellow human beings. IRC is a great place to coordinate such an endeavour. Guido den Broeder 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page obviously. I think it is ridiculous that such a decision has apparently been made on IRC without even bothering to notify anyone. In any case, my opinion on the matter is that adding "banned" is just a method of being spiteful, and doesn't improve the page in any way. Majorly talk 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that we have Talk page consensus that the Talk page is superior to IRC for handling consensus. Now, it appears that Mike.lifeguard will not correct his mistake of freezing the content page in a state that reflects the one-sided manipulation of an IRC team that has (to my knowledge) failed to release the transcript of their "consensus". Therefore, Mike has asked me to find consensus here on the Talk page that this notion of adding "banned on English Wikipedia" to my listing on the content page, without my knowledge, without my notification, and without my consent, is utter bollocks. I think it is disgraceful, and I move that the page be restored to how it was before this IRC team began to manipulate it. May I have consensus on that, please? -- Thekohser 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with self. -- Thekohser 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your note to me asking me to comment, I'd rather see consensus arrived at on the talk page if possible, that's the wiki way. I don't see the need for a specific transcript to be released but some summation of the points raised might be helpful. But to the specific question, I think it's meaningful to list that you've been banned. As long as that standard is applied uniformly... and that anyone else who is banned on any WMF wiki have that listed as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Here is another customer. Wutsje 16:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ack'd Lar, the same standard should definitely be applied for all in the list who are blocked. It's helpful to know who is still an active part of the community and who isn't for those who look for a public speaker. Also inactive people should be marked. Maybe someone wants both an active and a banned or inactive user to talk to. --თოგო ^(D) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would make sense to discuss that with the subject of the editorial change, or is it more in the WikiWay to conspire about it behind his back, change the listing, then have a sympathetic admin lock the page? You should note that when I took it upon myself to modify other speakers' listings on the page, I only did so after introducing two weeks of discussion about it, and then another two weeks to allow subjects to respond to a personal e-mail that I sent to each potentially affected party, then made it very clear that if anyone disagreed with any of my by-the-process modifications, they could restore them. Compare the bullshit that just happened to me in the past two days here. If it is decided appropriate to list the specific projects where a speaker is blocked or banned, then I think it would also be appropriate to list the active projects (active could be 50+ edits in the past 12 months) where they are not blocked or banned. I would be agreeable to that, since I am a fair person. -- Thekohser 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you assert that I am "sympathetic"?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's easy, Mike. In our past, have you ever dismissed as irrelevant my carefully researched opinion about promotional use of User pages? Yes, you have. Therefore, you are not an uninvolved admin regarding one of the key parties in this dispute. Yet, you elected to freeze the page in a state that was palpably adverse to how I wished myself to be characterized. After complaint was made to you, you dismissed the complaint, saying that Talk page consensus should rule the day -- even though you just froze a page that was the result of IRC consensus over Talk page consensus. Any ordinary person would believe beyond a reasonable doubt that you are "sympathetic" to the side opposite the one I am taking here. My assertion was a rudimentary and simple one to make. -- Thekohser 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I once kept discussion on-topic, so now I am sympathetic to anything you don't happen to like? I think the weakness of the argument makes itself obvious. Please let me know when a consensus has formed on the substantive matters here, and I'll be sure it is carried out. Until then  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "kept discussion on-topic" you mean that when the discussion was about misuse of User space to self-promote offsite pages, and you were given an example of a Wikimedian similarly misusing her User space to self-promote, that you removed that example from the discussion, then sure, the argument is really, really weak. Mike, have you ever done anything wrong on a Wikimedia project? -- Thekohser 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Thekohser. This is a list of real people. Any link to a person's account, if not provided by the person themselves, is therefore a privacy violation. To allow this will, as always, only result in an endless parade of defamation attempts as Wutsje so convincingly demonstrates. Guido den Broeder 16:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What you write is that a person is the only one who can say something about himself. Even when it is obvious that the representation is in fact a misrepresetation. Mr Kosh is a self appointed admin, he is blocked not only but also on the en.wikipedia. Mr Kosh has the option to refrain from standing as a public speaker. That is something that will not be denied and with it, this discussion becomes irrelevant and at that stage Mr Kohs does not need to be discussed as a person who wants to go out in the public. Thanks, GerardM 17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We ought to think about discounting the argument of someone who cannot even correctly spell the name of his adversary. -- 69.141.192.61 03:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning a few facts can hardly qualify as a step in "an endless parade of defamation attempts", I'd say. When someone declares himself a public speaker on Meta on "expertise, policy, project leadership, social experiment", anyone thinking about inviting him may may want to know something about his views on those subjects. The fact that GdB has been blocked infinitely on nl:wiki by an arbcom decision certainly sheds some light there. The same goes for mentioning his foundership of Wikisage, where he wrote about Wikipedia: "The illiterate had the opportunity to decide that their personal view was the neutral point of view, and the experts' input was rendered impossible by all imaginable means. Wikipedia is a prison where the convicted rules and their victims get locked up, a school where toddlers are the boss of the teachers" ([1]). Against this background not mentioning a long time block appears somewhat misleading to me. Wutsje 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And the parade commences ... Guido den Broeder 18:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The question here is: why would someone with a background like this want to list himself as a public speaker for Wikimedia? Wutsje 09:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is rather why would you, who has never shown an interest in this page before, and has no insights regarding Wikimedia projects to offer yourself that we're aware of, suddenly show up, and start demanding that private information about listed speakers is revealed. Except of course that Darkoneko has already told me how this happened and what your purpose is. Guido den Broeder 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My purpose is to get some clarification here about your motives. My insights in Wikimedia are not a subject here: I have not listed myself as a public speaker. The fact that you're blocked on nl:wiki certainly is not private information (see here) (and as for the Wikisage quote: it's on the internet, you put it there, it's your site). I have no problem with speakers who obviously are kind of dissidents within the Wikimedia community, but I do wonder why you so adamantly persist in wanting your block on nl:wiki not mentioned. Wutsje 22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wutsje, I have no other motives than, I think, anyone else on the page. Unsurprisingly, you still fail to understand any of the points made (you're only an admin, after all). First, it's up to you to explain why you insist on mentioning something that you clearly think will hurt a real person (I don't), rather than the other way around. Second, the speakers are not the same as some accounts. None of the speakers is blocked or banned anywhere, only accounts are. To reveal or suggest that some account belongs to some real person is not allowed except in specific cases, of which this is not one. Guido den Broeder 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GdB has clearly missed this sentence: "When someone declares himself a public speaker on Meta on "expertise, policy, project leadership, social experiment", anyone thinking about inviting him may may want to know something about his views on those subjects. The fact that GdB has been blocked infinitely on nl:wiki by an arbcom decision certainly sheds some light there." As for his suggestion that there might be several different users active under the name Guido den Broeder: I simply don't buy that. Wutsje 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You now have made 5 posts here, where you replied to none of the questions that have been asked (what is so vitally important about blocks that privacy rules can be broken?), but instead found it necessary to point to the same individual block in each of them and insinuate ulterior motives, while you have never heard me speak. I think we've seen enough, please spare us any further reiterations. Guido den Broeder 17:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again: there are no privacy issues here, user blocks are not private information, so they can be mentioned in the list. And again: afaic they should, as that may be informative to any person who might want to invite one of these self-appointed speakers about what they may expect. Wutsje 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can answer that question, Guido. The page purports to feature people who "are available to give presentations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects." I am available to do that; and, in fact, I have done it a couple of times before -- once on national television, another time at a professional education conference. Second, the page also explains: "Disclaimer: The people presented here do not necessarily speak on behalf or at the request of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, in the spirit of open and transparent communication, various voices are represented in this self-generated and community-maintained list. Not all of the voices share the same perspectives or experiences about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects." I think that I suitably fit that bill, perhaps unlike anyone else on the page (except for the guy who feels Wikimedia projects were an utter waste of his life, who is now removed from the page, thanks to my efforts to clean up and keep current the page). Finally, although it doesn't say so on the page, I would forward the proposition that I know more about Wikipedia, about the Wikimedia projects, and about the Wikimedia Foundation than at least 75% of the others listed on the page, and certainly more than 99.8% of all Americans. I've always wished someone would put together an impartial quiz about Wikipedia and WMF subjects, such that we might have Wikipedia Jeopardy! or something like it. I do have a wealth of knowledge about these topics, and I'm just offering to share them. Numerous independently-acting editors here have also endorsed my listing on this page, even if it upsets a few people who can't tolerate the thought of open and transparent communication that does not necessarily speak on behalf or at the request of the WMF. We need to start building consensus now. -- Thekohser 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies... I thought that Wutsje's dialog was directed at me. My answer still informs, though. -- Thekohser 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Other modifications...

So, if the consensus from the IRC team pans out, and it is okay to modify other speakers' listings with information that they would prefer not be posted to their listing, what things do you think we might be able to get away with doing to certain other people's listings? -- Thekohser 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There never was an IRC consensus. Darkoneko has pretty much admitted that he went canvassing. But consensus building is not a vote. With no answer to the question why a mention of bans and blocks would be so critical here that this page should be an exception to the rule against outing, the consensus remains where it was before, i.e. with this general rule rather than with some votestack. Guido den Broeder 15:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree there was never any real agreement to add the ban mention (actually, quite the opposite). I suggest it be removed promptly and the page be unprotected. Majorly talk 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me there's still no consensus about that. Wutsje 23:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add it either. So we return to the status quo. Besides, the person who it is doesn't want it there, why are we trying to rub it in their face that they are banned? Majorly talk 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not about rubbing in. I seriously think that anyone who may want to invite one of the speakers on the list should have a change to know who they're dealing with, especially when not mentioning relevant facts could be considered to be misleading. Why should we allow readers to be misinformed? Wutsje 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is misinforming? If I was going to employ someone as a speaker, I would do a little more research than just looking at the blurb on their profile. Greg is only banned from an extreme minority of Wikimedia projects, so he can speak about other projects he is not banned from, and should be able to without the slur on his name. Majorly talk 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Mr. Thekohser's contributions, but I am familiar with those of Mr. Den Broeder. Did you check the quote on his site (Wikisage) I mentioned above? And wouldn't you say that a infinite ban by the nl:wiki arbcom for legal threats might be worth mentioning? Wutsje 21:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually. In answer to your second question, no, not at all. Majorly talk 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't even care to read the whole discussion on this page, then why bother participating in it? Mr. Den Broeder is a well known troll on nl:wiki. His ideas about Wikipedia are quite peculiar, to say the least. Maybe you don't mind, but I do - and I should think people like him should not be listed as public speakers without some sort of explanation who he is and what he may have to say. Wutsje 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

People can develop an informed opinion from my publications and from the various articles that have been written about me. These are easy enough to find. Some may have heard me speak before. I have regularly spoken in favour of freely spreading knowledge for nearly three decades. Guido den Broeder 20:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And so we establish that mr. Wutsje is even willing to violate a third user's privacy without blinking just so he can spread lies about a speaker. Anyone with a brain still thinks it's a good idea to let other users edit an entry? Guido den Broeder 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Den Broeder insights in the concepts of both privacy and truth do not appear very thorough to me. Wutsje 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr den Broeder's trash talking exposes his lack of insight that by advertising as a public speaker the right to privacy needs to be balanced with the right to people organising events to get the right person. When people want their privacy, they should not seek the limelight. Thanks, GerardM 10:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My dear Gerard, we are still waiting for you to explain how the mention of block and ban incidents so significantly helps people 'get the right person' that we can ignore all privacy rules. Guido den Broeder 11:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_speakers&action=historysubmit&diff=1684252&oldid=1683904 - I don't get it? If ppl are realy that controversial whats wrong with pointing out verifying information is wise? It's even called trolling.. omg. It's maybe just even more underscribing the deleted advice? I recommand a restore of that edit as a compromise for all of the above... (Dutch wp user 2 lazy for login ;-P) 62.194.31.168 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Should speakers be self-described, community-described, or cabal-described?

Personally, I would !vote for self-described, except where the information is overtly fraudulent or misleading, in which case, consensus on the Talk page (not on IRC) may overrule what a public speaker wishes to say about himself or herself. -- Thekohser 21:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tend to prefer that Position should be the person's position, not what status they are in the wikigame. Majorly talk 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed.

Self-described is the only logical way, but with the guidance that the info should be verifiable (position) and to the point (both position and comments). If in some instance it isn't, IMHO the speaker can be asked to amend their text, and if they fail to comply their entry can be blanked, but never should someone else change the content of their entry. Guido den Broeder 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So, we appear to have consensus of 3-0. I can't wait for the content page to be unlocked! -- Thekohser 14:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You got that wrong.. GerardM 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks right to me. Majorly talk 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that purely self described is appropriate. Were I inclined to, when describing myself I could easily use terms such as "brilliant", "intensely captivating speaker", "svelte", "dashingly handsome" and the like. It may come as a shock to some, but not all of those self described accolades are accurate. Self description is a starting point, yes, but it needs to be tempered with some measure of evaluation by others as to whether it's appropriate or not. To the proximate point here, I do think that mentioning of block records is appropriate. But not just singling out one person, please. Finally I don't think 3-0 is a "consensus"... it's just an interesting starting point. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lar, can you please explain why you think the mentioning of blocks is important? You are still singling people out by insisting on this specific bit of info (instead of e.g. "was denied adminship on ..." that I think is slightly more informative), albeit two persons instead of one. If a block is mentioned, should then not also the reason for that block be mentioned, so the reader can judge its meaning in this context for themselves? For instance: "They are currently blocked on one of the hundred projects for correcting a typo in their name / for making humorous edit summaries". And who should edit that? What with speakers who are blocked under unknown usernames, how do we detect that? Guido den Broeder 09:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to know that a significant community has a view about a contributor so strong that it lead to a permanent ban. I'm surprised at your resistance. If it's necessary to elaborate, rather than recapping (in a potentially biased way) why, just give a link to the relevant discussion(s). ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your surprise is stunning, because you should know better. Ban discussions are rarely neutral or even readable, and never have I seen a case where the decision was made by 'a significant community'. Also, the reason to ban usually has nothing to do with someone's views regarding Wikimedia projects in general or even the single one where the speaker is banned. But it is good to see that you already went from all blocks to only permanent bans. Guido den Broeder 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is you who should know better. I suspect your view is colored by the fact that you're currently indefinitely blocked (or banned, depending on terminology used) on more than one wiki. I think transient blocks probably don't need mentioning but if someone is blocked for a considerable period (say, anything from a month up) at the time of their adding themselves to the list, it ought to be memtioned. Because that IS a significant fact. It shows that the person cannot function within the norms of the community. Whether that is because of their own issues, or because of community issues is a matter of opinion, but it's a material fact nonetheless. Again, this is a reasonable thing to require mentioning on the listing. Your resistance to that is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What about a public speaker who has so egregiously transgressed social norms, that his actions have been brought to publication in the mainstream press, bringing disrepute to the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects? If we're going to mention community bans, wouldn't it be equally, if not more, important to mention extra-community infamy? I think you know which speaker I am talking about, so I won't elaborate, unless it's requested that I show where this has happened before... multiple times. -- Thekohser 13:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that if we are mentioning blocks, an internal matter, then that sort of information probably ought to be mentioned as well. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So where does it end? Can't you see that this completely destroys the idea of having this page? Nobody would want to be on it. Surely if such facts would be in any way significant, there would be a neutral encyclopedic article about the person mentioning them, hmmmmm? Meanwhile, I see that you, too, are now using this talk page as a coatrack to defame a speaker where you are personally involved in the speaker's current status on a project. That is exactly the kind of thing that we want to avoid here. This neatly demonstrates, btw, that there might be something wrong with those (i.e. your) norms, rather than with the blocked speaker. Guido den Broeder 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a place for speakers to advertise their services. There is no need for people to fiddle with others' entries (unless the information given is obviously false). I can't see what is so difficult about this. Majorly talk 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a place where you can find people who are willing to speak about Wikimedia related subjects. When information is hopelessly biased / flawed it is understandable and appropriate when people object. People do not need to advertise their willingness to be a speaker. Thanks, GerardM 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what information is biased/flawed. "People do not need to advertise their willingness to be a speaker" Shall we delete the entire page then? Majorly talk 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, that may be what it eventually comes down to. Certain people are very jealous of other (banned) people's talent and ability and track-record of public exposure (such as on national TV and academic conferences alike), and so they have to somehow find additional avenues where they may launch into attacks that they believe will help justify "why this obviously gregarious and successful person needed to be blocked from Wikipedia". Their own behavior is childish and amateurish, not to mention counter-intuitive, yet they think this sort of bashing is going to somehow elevate their foolishness to the level of "careful criticism". What's funny is that ever since this page has been the site of crazy argumentative battle, there is not one speck of evidence that anyone outside of Meta has exercised any effort to contact any of these speakers, as a result of the listing here. I'd vote for full deletion of the entire page, as long as trolls like Gerard are running amok. -- Thekohser 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If it comes to that, a viable alternative may be to create a template that speakers can put on their meta userpage. Regards, Guido den Broeder 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good idea. Provide a template that gives some standard info fields, and creates a category, have this page talk about the contents of teh category and point to the template and let people find folk on their own... ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We could also provide a link to Luxo's tool, so that anyone interested can view for himself if someone's blocked or not. Wutsje 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)