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? -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
