On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Michael Noda wrote:
I would like to second all of what Andrew has said above.
Thirded. I've been working on Wikipedia since mid 2001, I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of years now too, and I neither know nor really care all that much about all these details. What I _do_ care about is the atmosphere that's being generated by it, both here on-wiki and in the general external public perception of what we do here. It's all just a tempest in a teapot in the grand scheme of things but it's a loud and annoying tempest that gets attention.
I'm not going to go so far as to ask anyone to leave, but it would be really nice if everyone ratcheted down the drama a bit. If someone asks "hey, this link [1] says you're a secret agent who blew up Locherbie, what's with that?" Just give a plain answer explaining how the article's written by a loonie with an axe to grind. Dollars to donuts most people will go "oh, okay" and move on. Using all this mysterious "Oversight" and "Attack Sites" stuff to wipe the question from existence only makes things worse.
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.