[WikiEN-l] One alternative

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:33:59 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan at tobias.name> wrote:

>Wasn't that attitude (though without the obscenity) basically what 
>Durova was insisting on in the immediate wake of her bad block... that 
>she knew what she was doing, and everybody should just shut up and trust 
>her on it?  Look how well *that* worked out...

I have no idea, and it's of absolutely no relevance whatsoever,
because what Alec is doing is repeating things he has been told
many, many times are absolutely false.  It was understandable if
problematic to make incorrect assertions before the facts were
presented, but to continue to assert falsehoods after they have been
corrected by people who were, unlike Alec, parties to the original
exchange, is both trollish and incredibly rude.  Essentially Alec is
calling Jimbo a liar.  And me as well.  And that, understandably
pisses me off.

You now seem to be saying that the fact that Alec's continued
assertion of a falsehood pisses me off is some kind of evidence that
I'm part of the problem.  Well, no.  The problem is people who
relentlessly assert falsehoods about others.  That is called
trolling, and it is damaging to the project.  Nobody, especially me,
has an unlimited reserve of patience with people who continue to say
things that we know, as parties involved from day one *are not
true*.  We have a terrible tendency as a project to allow endless
querulousness but cry "abuse!" when the targets of that
querulousness snap back.  You don't like it when Giano is criticised
for snapping back, and I don't like it when I am.  I am not proud of
the fact that determined trolling winds me up, but that does not
mean that determined trolling is a good thing and I am a bad person.

Alec has been told his interpretation is false. He has been told
this by people who were and are on the list and were recipients of
the original email.  He has been told it many times.  He does not
believe it.  That is his prerogative, but continuing to harp on
about it is not.  

I would suggest that we create a project page which states the issue
in neutral terms, but actually we already have one: the Durova
arbitration.  I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation
is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to
accept that it's all they are going to get.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG