On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
My post was not directed at the people discussing the situation, though I would undoubtedly prefer not to have to hear about it. It was directed at the people who are invariably at the core of what is being discussed and whose behaviour seems only to further aggravate the whole problem.
So because I removed one comment from SV's page, you think I need to take a few months off?
You have been involved in this whole long-term ongoing debacle a lot more than removing "one comment", and whilst you seem to have a hard time understanding what my message meant I notice no-one else on this thread seemed under any misconceptions about it.
Let me explain my stance again.
I am all for people's rights to privacy, and all for us doing reasonable amounts to protect their anonymity where people are dickish about that. Heck, I would be v. upset if someone started "outing" information about me for whatever petty reasons they might have, and though I sign my name here, I have taken quiet care to conceal details I consider private.
But when it comes to disrupting the encyclopedia [as with the whole attack-sites fiasco before], consuming vast amounts of our time and energy and attention, and making us look like a bunch of easily-gamed incompetents to the outside world - all to protect the anonymity of one username, anonymity which seems to be thoroughly torpedoed by this stage? We're going too far; we're prioritising stubborn pride over our work.
This is a problem that could be solved not by "appeasement", that loaded but meaningless term, but by a simple and pragmatic decision by a handful of [already-pseudonymous] users to stop editing for a few weeks and come back under another name. I don't care who you think "wins" if that happens - it's the best solution, inasmuch as it stops this vast amount of noise and disruption.
And everyone else would feel the benefit. I know I'm banging the drum here, but really, it's for the good of the encyclopedia. Yes, it would dent some egos. Yes, some trolls somewhere would be smug.
But pragmatically, there is no other way to stop it, to control and calm the debacle. There isn't a "and then everything is fluffy bunnies" outcome at this stage. Nothing you do can make this situation better.
*Nothing*. Yes, it sucks.
Like I said originally, this is not personal; this is not because I dislike any of the participants (you and I have had many disagreements in the past, but I don't recall dealing with Slim, and I've never had cause to argue with you over an actual *article*!). I feel a heel saying it. I wish the situation wasn't where it's got to.
Right now, you and Slim and the others are just magnets for drama. It doesn't matter why it all started, or what the details of it are, or who said what when, or how terribly unfair it all is to complain; your responses perpetuate it and aggravate it. This whole thing is ballooning bigger and bigger as time goes on; what you are doing is harming the project, and if it goes on much further the incremental damage will be that much worse.
Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away. Nothing to stop you coming back - you can tell us about it privately or you can keep it quiet - and no-one will be any the wiser; new account, muddle around editing something trivial for a few weeks, and that's it. We'll survive without you, for a while; the graveyards are full of indispensable men, and all that.
Heck, even keeping your current identity and just dropping all this endless game of whack-a-mole oversighting would be a start.
We can't make this decision for you; there isn't a "process" the community can use to make you do the sensible thing. But we can *ask*, we can explain, we can advocate, that you do it.
As one colleague to another. Please.