[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism userbox

Mon Jun 5 03:56:35 UTC 2006

G'day George,

> Even discounting a lot of the pile-on me-too complaints against Tony from
> problem editors, there remain significant numbers of people who aren't and
> object to some of the stuff he's done.

"Significant" is a bit strong.  I'd go with "not insignificant". (Hey, 
it's a fine line ...)

> My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem
> for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that
> justification, of late.  Playing well with others is more important now.

"Fuck process" is an entirely appropriate attitude for any experienced 
Wikipedian to take.  If you're doing the Right Thing, it doesn't matter 
if process backs you up or not --- if it does, well, whoopee, and if it 
doesn't, well we don't follow process when it leads to obvious 
absurdities (like not doing the Right Thing).

The thing is, you've got to be prepared to accept that what you're doing 
may not be the Right Thing and, if so, be willing to apologise.  And 
Right/Wrong isn't binary: it's a spectrum from Wrong Thing to Right 
Thing and you can be 90% Right and still be causing legitimate editors 
to complain because you didn't get spot on.  That's where "my ideals 
were right, but it lacked something in the execution" comes in.

And to make things more complicated, sometimes (but not as often as 
we're led to believe) the Right Thing can only be achieved by following 
process, lest we get 10% Wrong by pissing a legit editor off ...

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse