Hi, Sarah. Thanks for writing. I especially appreciate the temperate tone.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 3/5/07, David Gerard dgerard@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.
I feel deeply for Essjay in this. As with Sheldon Rampton, I know how painful it is to learn that bluffing your way through a problem doesn't work in the long run. And my education in this was a tiny fraction of what Essjay brought upon himself. If I knew him personally I'd be out right now dragging him for long walks in the park. As I've said repeatedly in various contexts, I hope he'll come back first as an editor and eventually as an admin. Once he has actually learned this lesson, I'll be first in line to support his RFA.
I also think that mere attacks are unnecessary and harmful. I've asked a number of people to settle down, tried to build consensus in the RFC, and redacted various needlessly harsh bits of language. Had I seen anybody both frothing and unwilling to calm down, I would happily have asked AN/I to give them a time out. Fortunately, I didn't have to do that.
However, I still think David's decision was wrong.
First, the RFC was closed. If there were attacks, no new ones were happening. Open or not, there were ways to remove or archive actual attacks without removing the very large amount of substantive comment on many sides of the issue.
Second, BLP rightly doesn't apply to talk pages. BLP is to prevent our hopefully neutral, factual articles from being distorted with opinion and lies. The RFC was obviously opinion, and signed opinion at that. Nobody would have accidentally taken it as NPOV fact.
Third, suppressing discussion here is not going to suppress it everywhere. A quick look at the blog reactions show a hundred times more venom and contempt than were expressed on the RFC page. And what David has buried also includes a fair bit of neutral analysis and outright support for Essjay, as well a much more moderate and reasoned criticism.
Fourth, although I agree that Ryan Jordan has a right to get on with his life, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia the institution must or even should stop discussing the Essjay incident, any more than the New York Times should have stopped internal discussion, external publication, or message board comments around the Jayson Blair incident at the time he resigned.
Which leads me to my fifth and last point: our transparency. Negative things about Essjay are disappearing at a much faster rate than positive things. I think this is a natural consequence of people with heft being upset at seeing a friend go through the wringer, or seeing a project they love get a black eye. But if we are only transparent and open when we find it pleasant and easy, then it's not a principle, it's a convenience.
William