[WikiEN-l] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.

[stevertigo]

Note: Please excise quotes properly - the below quote looked as if it
belonged to Charcaroth.

Stevertigo wrote:
>> In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual
>> solution,
>Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to
> anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should
> be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing
> deletion discussions?

Its not IAR that helps "administrators" 'use their own judgment' - its
BRAINS. And resting an idea of proper action on IAR alone is doing
nothing else other than saying BRAINS is a policy called "IAR."  Which
isn't true. We may not like the idea that RULES > BRAINS, but we
already know that the BRAINS > RULES conjecture doesn't fly. Even
Einstein, aside from the being-off-planet thing, could not post any
new insights into a Wikipedia article without violating NOR. NOR is
one of those rules we are suppose to 'not ignore.'

So while this BRAINS policy is a nice idea, without actually making
any qualitative discernments about what's in those BRAINS, it just
doesn't mean anything other than to exist as a BRAINY way to say that
some people have them and others don't. It may seem ironic that a
BRAINS policy would itself be quite uselessly simplistic and
applicable in only a binary, one-dimensional way, but not really. Not
if you think about it. So I prefer that we just stick to the
arguments, and let the issue of BRAINS just sort of sort itself out.

In reality the context here is not the success of IAR, but the simple
fact that someone made an editorial decision and explained themselves
in an detailed way that gave good faith to the arguments of the
opposing side. In that context, the opposing side just let the issue
go.

I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes
of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to
come back and screw with me some more later?

-Stevertigo