[WikiEN-l] Rules vs. Anarchy

[Charles Matthews]

Ed Poor wrote

>A few contributors have taken me to task, for daring to suggest that
enforcing the rules of Wikipedia is a duty -- rather than something to
be apologized for.

That may well be true.  I, for my part, would take Ed to task for
consistently asserting that the end justifies the means, in WP matters.

<snip>

>Problems with Wik dragged on because we don't have clear moral ideas,
that all subscribe to.

That the end does not justify the means is a clear moral idea.  It is true
that not all here subscribe to it.  In the case, the end (that the
atmosphere on WP would be cleared with his departure) would have happily
been used to justify the means by a number of prominent sysops - whether or
not the means had the sanction of agreed policy or process.  That seems to
be the limited basis, such as it is, of the 'cabal' claim.

>The problem with 172 _was_ resolved (without
resorting to the Arbitration Committee), because we were all able to
discuss it on the mailing list. But Abe maintains the posture of having
taken offense, rather than realizing he offended, so the resolution
remains incomplete.

I think anyone in future (and let's hope this kind of scenario is something
from which WP moves on) who sees Ed in provocative action on the mailing
list should take good note of the history on this.  Ed is happy with
resolution/closure on matters seen as dragging on ('log-jams', as he put it
in another self-justifying mail to this list); Ed doesn't mind going outside
norms to get movement; if the end has sufficient support, then Ed will see
no reason to apologise, though he will issue various statements that he is
backing down, willing to compromise, is contrite for any infringements, and
so on.  Beware of the dog/chien mechant.

Charles