ft2.wiki at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 01:25:53 UTC 2009
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
> >> Are you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good*
> >> dicks to act like dicks?
> FT2 wrote:
> > 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?
We may have to disagree. I find that there's a fairly good consensus and
understanding on these things among long-standing, experienced users --
especially those acknowledged by their peers in some significant way, such
as arbs, checkusers, oversighters, crats, stewards, etc.
They may not agree always what's best, but there is remarkable consensus on
what's desirable and what sort of approaches are in line with the spirit of
In bullet point:
- Wikilawyering's common, and damaging. Be an admin or arb trying to
resolve a heated POV warred dispute, for the experience. We're here to write
an encyclopedia, which means fostering a specific kind of collegial
community. Not to endlessly babysit those who look for rules that can be
fiangled to enable disruption. Experienced users are often quite good at
- "genuinely problematic editor" is an oxymoron. It's also a socially
usable expression to refer to users who are indeed disruptive in the effects
of their conduct, rather than those superficially seeming or claimed on
shallow evidence to be so.
- "If X wishes" does not exclude that Y may do so as well.
And so on.
We may best agree to differ.
More information about the WikiEN-l