stvrtg at gmail.com
Sun Oct 4 22:48:33 UTC 2009
>> Are you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good*
>> dicks to act like dicks?
> No. I'm saying IAR ensures that /if/ an admin wishes to act
> against a genuinely problematic editor, wikilawyering ("but
> policy allows what I did!") won't easy prevent them doing so.
Breaking that down:
5) There is nothing "easy" about "wikilawyering." Blocking for
"wikilawyering" on the other hand can be quite dickish.4)
"Wikilawyering" is just a subjective ad-hominem (I'm alleged to be an
expert, so I should know). Its an under-handed label that has meaning
only because Arbcom is short-handed.
3) "genuinely problematic editor" is a total oxymoron (editors are not
problematic), in addition to being a quarrelsome subjective, if
"genuinely" is not [[well-defined]].
2) "/if/ an admin wishes..." has to be a joke: 'If and only if
[anyone] really really wants to...' "If an admin wishes" cannot
qualify as a definition.
1) "IAR ensures" has to be a joke: i.e. 'this caveat guarantees...'
> [if] policy has an unfortunate wording loophole,
> you can make an indfividual judgment on it."
I try to do that all the time, but my opposition in particular
squabbled lately have *also* cited IAR to violate even Civil (an
actual pillar). IAR only creates discordian paradoxes.
> In a project where anyone can write wordings, the communal
> sense of the spirit of a policy, and its pre-eminence, is quite a
> significant thing.
"Communal sense" does'nt mean anything -- the Nazis had one also. We
don't let "wikiality" guide article development for a reason -- why
should "wikiality" continue to guide policy?
More information about the WikiEN-l