[WikiEN-l] Wikilawyering IAR?

[geni]

On 5/23/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Renaming against policy]]
>
> The second user (not the first) wants to usurp someone else's name.
>
> Policy says that this is done only if the other user has no edits.  The
> other user has two edits, which consist of two test edits of "let's see",
> made nine months ago.  IAR would suggest that allowing someone to usurp
> this name is in the spirit of the rule.
>
> Someone objected to IAR on the grounds that IAR must be used to "improve the
> encyclopedia" and letting a user have a particular name doesn't improve the
> encyclopedia.  Which seems to violate the spirit of IAR.  Do we need to IAR
> the literal wording of IAR?
>

No you need to stop trying to use it to rule lawyering. Directly
citing IAR is simply a rather poor attempt at rule lawyering.

> Of course, I could argue that letting a user get the desired name makes for
> a friendlier experience at Wikipedia and this encourages users and thus
> helps improve the encyclopedia.  But that's really wikilawyering, and the
> point of IAR is not having to do that.

You don't need IAR to get around rule lawyering.

-- 
geni