On 3/6/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/5/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
William
Pietri wrote:
> > This especially concerns me as you used your administrative powers
to
> > enforce your minority view in a
disagreement in which you were very
> > actively involved. Wouldn't it have been better to let somebody who
had
> less
involvement decide the outcome?
William, I understand that feelings are
running high and people feel
they need an outlet. Still, we have a very serious situation here
where the subject has left Wikipedia and yet is continuing to be
attacked. Bear in mind that he's being discussed by what we believe to
be his real name, so BLP kicks in here, and we have to be careful what
we say, and respectful of his right to get on with his life. It's
important to discuss the political fall-out so we can work out what
the lessons are, but comments about the person aren't necessary. As
David said, it was an uncertified RfC, and he was within his rights to
delete it.
Sarah
All true. Nevertheless, I admit that I am concerned this does appear to be
somewhat gaming the process - following the letter but not the spirit. Maybe
David thinks he conforms with the spirit because the RfC was a lynch mob,
but from what I could see at the time, only a few radical people were
actually interested in anything like a lynching. It was a bandwagon (and an
unwarranted one at that, IMO), to be sure, but not a lynch mob. Most people
there seemed to like Essjay, and only a few people were doing the dramatic
"I feel so betrayed/I can never trust him again/he should be deadminned"
kind of thing. The pile-on was a natural consequence of interest in
encouraging Essjay to step down for the benefit of WP.
Anyway, this is all academic now, IMO. It's time to move on, and it doesn't
matter whether the RfC stayed or went. Let's get back to the normal business
of the mailing list - making mountains out of molehills like this. Oh wai
:p
Johnleemk