On 9/5/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Well of course not because they will just cite WP:IAR. Then they could go on the argue that policy is descriptive not proscriptive and throw in the words "common sense" a few times.
If anyone can justify, using "common sense" and "the good of the project", ignoring AGF, they deserve a prize.
You don't phrase it like that. You talk about obvious cases and how we need the abilty to react faster (dig up the excuses for the various anti terriousm laws that have been brought in lately and apply). You talk about how it is nessacery to protect the project from those who wish to hurt it (at this point you may wish to insinate that those opposeing you support willy on wheels or lack determination in keeping wikipedia copyvio free)
Further you can add that those who oppose you have lost sight of the true goals of the project (useful since it is a pain to dissprove and pretty much forces your oponents onto the defensive)
It is really very simple.
This is always a sensible way of doing things. :-)
90% of the time it causes pointless time wasteing. The trick is knowing where that 10% is.