Dear Григор Гачев, since you are an administrator on a wiki from which no user participated in this discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of some recent events which may alter what the Wikimedia Foundation lets you do on your wiki: Superprotect.
- Request for comment: Requests for comment/Superprotect rights
- An open letter about its implementation: Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
Peteforsyth 10:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to respond to your reply. You are more than welcome to the last word. And I truly, truly regret that it ended this way.
I have only one problem: use of the word lie. (See English verb, sense #2.) While there is colloquial use of the word for unintentional transmission of falsehood, the clear implication of the word is one of intention to deceive. Whatever else may be the case here, I have not tried to deceive. I have tried to be fair throughout the process. So if you want to say that my statement is "not correct" or "not true", you are welcome to say that. However, to say that it is "a lie" is an unfair and unjustified attack on me, and I'd ask you to withdraw it. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- You are right to complain about the use of word "lie":
due to my poor English, I didn't consider this connotation. My personal belief, as of this moment, is that you were misled about who attacked whom, but not that you intentionally presented a falsehood. I apologize sincerely for unwittingly implying the latter, and will immediately correct my statement to reflect that. Please feel free to point to this apology everyone who would still assume an intentional deception on your part, because of my words. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Your English is pretty good, as far as it goes. (You know the word "connotation", after all.) Something like this is a subtle thing, and one of the problems that native speakers like me need to remember not to be super-sensitive about when using English in an international type of setting. I am most grateful that you were willing to change that statement. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Though I can see a reason to regret that things ended this way. "Better LangCom be accused of pushing the envelope slightly than to open a precedent where people can swoop in and take over dormant projects to promote an agenda." - looks to me like in this case LangCom pushed the envelope more than slightly to allow people to swoop in and take over a non-dormant project to close it. (People taking over the Bulgarian Wikinews to promote an agenda were nowhere in sight, as can clearly be seen from the project content and history.)
- Effectively LangCom took the attacker's side in an unprovoked cross-project war instead of discouraging it, and overreached while at that. I try hard to imagine how this can be done while trying to be fair throughout the process, but fail. Such actions are most often a result precisely of strongly pushing for an agenda. So, once this succeeded, we might see more of it... But that is already a problem of WMF, not mine. I'm done with it. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)