[WikiEN-l] Blocking badlydrawnjeff (was Re: Thoughts on #wikipedia - threat or menace?)

[Gallagher Mark George]

G'day George,

> Someone is in violation of WP:POINT regarding this discussion:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Notice:_.5B.5BUser:Badlydrawnjeff.5D.5D_blocked.2C_unblocked

I don't think WP:POINT has anything to do with that block.  That was, and I say this as a regular[0] participant in IRC, pure and unadulterated moronitude.  It's fatuous, plain and simple, to state that Jeff has "exhausted the patience of the community", or that "there has been consensus" of all admins to get rid of the chap.  This is not a problem with IRC, mind: as an admin, I used discussion on IRC to inform many of my decisions; it's a valuable tool.  The same goes for the mailing list.  There's a huge problem, however, with taking an incredibly stupid action and then citing an IRC discussion as justification.

I mean, I could be wrong.  Perhaps Jeff has taken to doing something really bad, like spamming all of Wikipedia with images of the goatse man while I was away, but my experience with him --- personal experience, discussions with others who disagree with him as or more often than I, a scan of his block log --- show him to be an extremely annoying process wonk, but nonetheless an extremely annoying process wonk with a heart of gold who is of net benefit to the project.

Vampires are important, because they remind us what stakes and garlic are for.  Process wonks are important, because they remind us why we need process refugees.  I've found talking with Jeff invaluable in helping me form my views on process and policy, and I'm sure a number of other editors have gained similar benefit.  On top of that, he's a nice chap, he's capable of having sense beaten into him on occasion, and he's done far less damage than other editors who we tolerate or actively encourage.

I can't see any justification for Zsinj's[1] behaviour here.  If someone wants to criticise the less process-oriented editors out there, then all well and good.  Part of the trade-off for being a process refugee is that you have to be willing to explain your actions.  I'm on record, probably ad nauseum, saying that process should be ignored whenever we have a good reason to do so. Fine and good.  Users like badlydrawnjeff help us ensure that we *do* have a good reason.  You can't say you're willing to be held accountable for ignoring policy/process, then turn around and block someone for trying to do exactly that.  There's a number of words for that: cabalism, autocracy, hypocrisy ... incompetence.

As George says, let's not do that again, okay?


[0] Okay, not regular, not any more.  But back before I was working ...

[1] Who, I note, is a proud CVU member with a tonne of userboxen and a WikiDefcon template on his userpage.  Correlation is not causation, I know, but ... hmm ...

-- 
[[User:MarkGallagher]]