[WikiEN-l] Wikilawyering IAR?

[Gwern Branwen]

On  0, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> scribbled:
> [[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?
>
> 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 shouldn't. I was around when WP:USURP was being discussed and helped out with it. The only reason it actually became policy was because we steered *completely* clear of the issues of usurping accounts with edits, both to prevent abuse, stay within the stated goals, and just avoid the many problems with GFDL and whatnot. To try to get around it is to seriously violate the spirit and understanding in which it was accepted. Just don't. If it's to be done, the word "usurpation" should be nowhere near it and the renamings done for some other reason.

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070523/02251649/attachment.pgp