Phil Sandifer wrote:
I'll decline, but is "willfully misreading claims to construct straw man arguments and thus have a position of alleged moral superiority" in the article? Because if not, it really should be.
As for your other complaint, Wikipedia policy pages are descriptive. When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still around so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a particular style of solution to a particular style of problem becomes regular, we might get around to writing a policy page about it, but we're more likely to go watch TV.
I see no problem here. Someone with the username "Involved in trolling" made what appear to be good faith edits ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Involved_in_trolling ), and was blocked without an explanation. I'm not bringing this up because it's against policy but because it doesn't make sense.