[WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

[William Pietri]

Hi, Sarah. Thanks for writing. I especially appreciate the temperate tone.

Slim Virgin wrote:
> On 3/5/07, David Gerard <dgerard at 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

-- 
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri