On 01/08/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)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
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
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
*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.
- Andrew Gray