[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[Anthony]

On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> > Slim Virgin wrote:
> > > On 6/16/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >> It's not hypocrisy to violate one policy yet want to be in a position
> > >> to enforce others.
> > >
> > > It's hard to think of a clearer example of hypocrisy than trying to
> > > stop others from doing what you insist on being allowed to do
> > > yourself, with no known extenuating circumstance.
> >
> > Did Charlotte say that one of her priorities, if approved as
> > an admin, was going to be vigorous enforcement of WP:NOP?
> > I must have missed that.
> >
> Admins are meant to uphold policies. Therefore, we shouldn't go around
> violating them deliberately and sneakily.

"Ignore all rules" means that you are not required to learn the rules
before editing.
"Ignore all rules" means that one shouldn't follow written
instructions mindlessly, but rather, one should consider how the
encyclopedia is improved or damaged.
"Ignore all rules" means that everything is considered on a case-by-case basis.
"Ignore all rules" means that guidelines derive their power to compel,
not from being written down on a page labelled "guideline", but from
the consensus support that they enjoy. A consensus for a general rule
is assumed to apply to a specific case, until it is clear that the
consensus does not apply to the specific case. Wikipedia guidelines
are not suicide pacts
"Ignore all rules" means that Wikilawyering doesn't work. Loopholes
and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is neither moot
court, nor nomic, nor Mao. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of
the rule.
"Ignore all rules" means that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tend
to be descriptive as opposed to prescriptive, and that they sometimes
lag behind the practices they describe. (See Wikipedia:Follow
consensus, not policy)

> If people want to change
> policy, go for it. All I'm arguing for here is honesty.
>
The policy itself is what is not honest, because there seems to be no
intention whatsoever of enforcing it upon individuals who are not
otherwise doing something wrong.