On 8/13/07, Kamryn Matika <kamrynmatika(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 8/13/07, Sean <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
That's ridiculous. If the majority of people
don't support this
supposed policy, then it's not a valid policy in the first place.
Nice try. But just in case you're slow instead of simply disingenuous,
I'll explain. The few people weighing in on AB's RFA do not represent
the entire population of Wikipedia. Just because one or two more people
with fringe beliefs collect at one brief moment doesn't obliterate
popular and long standing policy.
There were more than one or two people commenting on AB's RfA, and
their beliefs were not fringe.
By the way, NOP is currently described as a *proposed* policy.
Don't be a wikilawyer.
The difference between a policy and a proposed policy is very real,
and not an unimportant legalistic distinction.
And you're right, the policy is fine as it now
stands. And so AB isn't
banned from anything. That's great; everything's sorted. Let's drop it and
move on.
AB isn't banned from anything. But s/he is blocked from editing, so
everything isn't OK.