Andrew Gray wrote:
And characterising it as "appeasement" just
further polarises the
situation. The fact that someone we don't like would be pleased (or
smug, perhaps more accurately) does not stop the fact that the project
would be better off for it. I am not calling for this because it's
what Wikipedia Review demand - I don't know what Wikipedia Review
want, to be frank. I am calling for this because I'm sick of it, and I
feel strongly that others are too.
Where do you think all this drama is coming from in the first place? The
lunatics at WR have been trying to get wider attention for their
conspiracy theories for several years. So you're unwittingly playing
into their hands, and in fact, your "please leave" message is already
reproduced at WR as the start of a new discussion thread.
Now it would be good if we had better ways to tamp down the drama once
it gets started. But asking valuable editors to quit in response to
outsiders going after them is completely the wrong way to go about it -
you may not like the word "appeasement", but what else would you call
it? You're giving the attackers what they want, at the expense of the
victims. Now that you're featured on WR, you're going to be under
scrutiny yourself - are you willing to quit and abandon all your WP work
when they start attacking you? And no, coming back under another name
won't help, they are always ready to make sockpuppet accusations.
You really should go take a look at WR, and see the malevolence for