If we've come to the conclusion that Jayjg's time here has come to a close and that his continued presence harms wikipedia's reputation perhaps a community ban would be in order?
SP
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Guys/Gals/Others,
This has turned into a free-for-all attack fest on SlimVirgin's handling of things, and Jayjg's just being on the project. Let's try to remember not to launch into personal attacks and remain calm, if you seem like you are going to explode and can't take it anymore; please back away from the computer, and do not post in the heat of things.
We have all established:
- SlimVirgin's handling could have been better/worse/should be
oversighted/should not have been oversighted/we need to hire ninjas to settle this/her MI6 handler is ready to wage a nuclear war James Bond style.
- Jayjg's time here has come to a close and he should give it up or go
into hiding. Let's all remember we can not by consensus or forcing it down someones throat, make them leave the project. If and only if Jayjg himself decides to leave, he will leave. Removal of bits or asking him to give them up, only gets old. If you want to involuntarly take tools away from someone, first get a consensus to even make that possible, then put the specific user up for removal of tools. English wikipedia does not have a method of doing this currently. -Other people saying 'we' really mean to say 'I'.
- That online harassment can evolve into a real life danger, something
one person has already confirmed, and something I can attest to as well.
- Trying to run between terminals at tokyo, with only 30 minutes to do
so, will undoubtly result in a missed flight and forced delay as you are put on another flight.
Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
-Josh
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk page.
Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I suddenly become "involved". Does that mean everyone who posted to this thread is now "involved", and should leave Wikipedia?
Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge amounts of "drama"...
The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of the problem this thread purports to be about.
Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it. If the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.
It's obvious to everyone but you
Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki communications from others who say they have no idea what this is all about.
but: nobody's talking about you just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff from SV's talk page? Where have I done this? And you think I should leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you apparently have invented for me?
I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to accord with any reality I am familiar with.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l