Be Kind is a great premise. But it's NOT kind to spread misinformation dressed up as facts. Your piece is based on an emotional reaction, devoid of fact checking, and represents a total distortion of events.

A cursory glance at the actual complaint, which you claim to have read, would reveal that:

• It was published in a different publication.
• The editor’s identity was NOT revealed by the writer.
• It was a complaint about a publication’s ridiculous misuse of software. The editor was incidental.
• The writer DID offer a compromise. The editor refused to discuss it. There were no ‘comments and suggestions’ — just instructions, which would have introduced errors.
• The writer bent over backwards to appease the situation. A totally butchered version was eventually published, to comply with the software.
• An attempt to discuss the problem privately with the head of the publication was ignored.
• The writer couldn't have predicted that someone would be asked to leave.
• Changing paragraphs into nonsense, as suggested by the software, would not have improved the piece.
• Lots of people were clapping on comments, not just the author.
• The writer doesn't hate the publication, nor the editor. She just felt her experience was at odds with submission guidelines.
• The complaint was only published when she realised other people felt the same way about the software.

Lessons learnt from the experiences were:

• On reflection, she shouldn’t have named the publication.
• If an editor demands unreasonable changes, it’s better to walk away.

She didn't think the publication was interested, didn’t expect them to see the story, had no idea there was a history of complaints, and couldn’t have predicted anyone leaving.

The editor's friend decided to reveal her identity within said publication, when he announced her departure.

I'm pleased that the editor was open to two-way discussions with you, but that hasn't been the case for everyone.

The post was not vindictive. It was driven by frustration and disbelief. There was no intention to get anyone fired. The outcome was unfortunate and regrettable. But the writer is not responsible for the history of complaints before she joined Medium.

We're all trying to move on. Perhaps you’d consider unpinning your piece and moving on too. The inaccuracies are deliberately ridiculous and unkind.

Be kind is a good premise. Spreading misinformation however, is not kind.