In other words, "we ignore policy when we see fit to do so." "We are not bound by policy." "And that stuff people used to chant about consensus? It's really been majority rule all along." "Who is this "community" I keep referring too? Why it's us arbs of course, and the admins at WP:AN/ANI."AGK [•] 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) wrote:As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it. Therefore, the best question isn't whether policy prohibits banned users from editing their talk page, but "Does a majority of the community think we should automatically revoke their talk page access?"
AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I Want"
- Triptych
- Retired
- Posts: 1910
- kołdry
- Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:35 am
- Wikipedia User: it's alliterative
AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I Want"
I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.
Triptych. A Live Journal I have under other pseudonym, w. email address: Tim Song Fan. My Arbcom Accountability Project: in German. In art.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31774
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
Stare decisis is for chumps.Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.
In other words, "we ignore policy when we see fit to do so." "We are not bound by policy." "And that stuff people used to chant about consensus? It's really been majority rule all along." "Who is this "community" I keep referring too? Why it's us arbs of course, and the admins at WP:AN/ANI."AGK [•] 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) wrote:As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it. Therefore, the best question isn't whether policy prohibits banned users from editing their talk page, but "Does a majority of the community think we should automatically revoke their talk page access?"
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
Fixed that for you.Triptych wrote:Why it's us arbs of course, and the stupid dickmittens and their masturbators at WP:AN/ANI."
Obvious civility robots are obvious
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:53 am
- Wikipedia User: AGK
- Wikipedia Review Member: AGK
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
This was actually the point I was making: even if policy does not say it's wrong to do X, that doesn't mean it's right to do X. People on Wikipedia seem to think that we need to quote a sentence, paragraph, and section of policy every time we do something. However, policy is written as we go along, meaning quite often common practice isn't properly recorded. And then some guy turns up to say "this thing that we do all the time is not permitted by any policy I can see", or "this thing we do all the time is contradicted by this policy" and demands we stop doing it. My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy, not expect every outcome to be codified.Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.
In other words, "we ignore policy when we see fit to do so." "We are not bound by policy." "And that stuff people used to chant about consensus? It's really been majority rule all along." "Who is this "community" I keep referring too? Why it's us arbs of course, and the admins at WP:AN/ANI."AGK [•] 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) wrote:As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it. Therefore, the best question isn't whether policy prohibits banned users from editing their talk page, but "Does a majority of the community think we should automatically revoke their talk page access?"
I'm fairly baffled by how you've arrived at the opinion that I think I can do what I want, but I guess you can't let anything get in the way of a great subject line. Did you learn to argue by reading the Daily Mail?
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12234
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
Policy is the written organizational law of Wikipedia. Now, it may well be that Wikipedia's decision-making process which establishes this written law is undemocratic and defective — any bozo can arbitrarily change the Manual of Style and they just might not get called on it, for example, and even if they do the changes will be decided by a small circle of people in isolation; the RFC process is convoluted and esoteric, and the conclusions drawn from it may or may not be reality-based — but the fact remains that Wikipedia policy is the written law of the community.AGK wrote:This was actually the point I was making: even if policy does not say it's wrong to do X, that doesn't mean it's right to do X. People on Wikipedia seem to think that we need to quote a sentence, paragraph, and section of policy every time we do something. However, policy is written as we go along, meaning quite often common practice isn't properly recorded. And then some chump says "this thing that we do all the time is not permitted by any policy I can see", or "this thing we do all the time is contradicted by this policy" and demands we stop doing it.Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.
In other words, "we ignore policy when we see fit to do so." "We are not bound by policy." "And that stuff people used to chant about consensus? It's really been majority rule all along." "Who is this "community" I keep referring too? Why it's us arbs of course, and the admins at WP:AN/ANI."AGK [•] 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) wrote:As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it. Therefore, the best question isn't whether policy prohibits banned users from editing their talk page, but "Does a majority of the community think we should automatically revoke their talk page access?"
I'm fairly baffled by how you've arrived at the opinion that I think I can do what I want, but I guess you can't let anything get in the way of a great subject line. Did you learn to argue by reading the Daily Mail?
I'm not surprised in the least that a member of this more or less rogue ArbCom, taking cases before community discussion is exhausted (Norton) or setting arbitrary parameters for who can discuss what how (Wolfowitz), holds Wikipedia's organizational law in such low regard.
Tim Davenport
"Carrite" on WP
RfB
-
- Posts: 10891
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Location: hell
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
Liar.AGK wrote: My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy, not expect every outcome to be codified.
If your fellow Wikipedians followed the "Golden Rule", they would have banned you years ago. Because your past history on Wikipedia is a litany of process abuse, lies, backstabbing, manipulation, and madness. With very little content writing to redeem it.
Instead, they made you an arbitrator. Conclusion: Everything that comes out of your mouth, or from your keyboard, is shit. You are present to generate "dramah" and "lulz", nothing more.
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
I assume a basement-dwelling neckbeard like your good self gets all its "opinions" from The Sun.AGK wrote:This was actually the point I was making: even if policy does not say it's wrong to do X, that doesn't mean it's right to do X. People on Wikipedia seem to think that we need to quote a sentence, paragraph, and section of policy every time we do something. However, policy is written as we go along, meaning quite often common practice isn't properly recorded. And then some guy turns up to say "this thing that we do all the time is not permitted by any policy I can see", or "this thing we do all the time is contradicted by this policy" and demands we stop doing it. My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy, not expect every outcome to be codified.Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.
In other words, "we ignore policy when we see fit to do so." "We are not bound by policy." "And that stuff people used to chant about consensus? It's really been majority rule all along." "Who is this "community" I keep referring too? Why it's us arbs of course, and the admins at WP:AN/ANI."AGK [•] 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) wrote:As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it. Therefore, the best question isn't whether policy prohibits banned users from editing their talk page, but "Does a majority of the community think we should automatically revoke their talk page access?"
I'm fairly baffled by how you've arrived at the opinion that I think I can do what I want, but I guess you can't let anything get in the way of a great subject line. Did you learn to argue by reading the Daily Mail?
I left a message for you here: link
And until you prove to me otherwise, I will continue to imagine that you look like this:
former Living Person
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
Thanks. That is what I meant to say.Wer900 wrote:Fixed that for you.Triptych wrote:Why it's us arbs of course, and the stupid dickmittens and their masturbators at WP:AN/ANI."
Triptych. A Live Journal I have under other pseudonym, w. email address: Tim Song Fan. My Arbcom Accountability Project: in German. In art.
- Peter Damian
- Habitué
- Posts: 4206
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
- Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
- Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
Even if policy says it's right to do X, it doesn't mean it's right to do X either. You seem to interpret 'policy' as though it were some sort of holy law. See my point on the other thread.AGK wrote: Even if policy does not say it's wrong to do X, that doesn't mean it's right to do X.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω
- Jim
- Blue Meanie
- Posts: 4955
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
- Wikipedia User: Begoon
- Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
- Location: NSW
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
I just love the bit where he says (paraphrasing) "So someone else notify the people I mentioned, because I can't be arsed". Lovely.
Despite the fact that he's been exposed and rejected as a twat, he still feels he has serfs in his serfdom, and they should serf for him.
The sense of entitlement is strong in this one.
Despite the fact that he's been exposed and rejected as a twat, he still feels he has serfs in his serfdom, and they should serf for him.
The sense of entitlement is strong in this one.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31774
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
He's the perfect logo for wikipedia.Jim wrote:I just love the bit where he says (paraphrasing) "So someone else notify the people I mentioned, because I can't be arsed". Lovely.
Despite the fact that he's been exposed and rejected as a twat, he still feels he has serfs in his serfdom, and they should serf for him.
The sense of entitlement is strong in this one.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
That Wikipedia lacks institutions is further evidence to back up what Vigilant opined in another thread, that frei kultur cannot do anything that hasn't been done before. And it does a pretty half-assed job at it.Jim wrote:I just love the bit where he says (paraphrasing) "So someone else notify the people I mentioned, because I can't be arsed". Lovely.
Despite the fact that he's been exposed and rejected as a twat, he still feels he has serfs in his serfdom, and they should serf for him.
The sense of entitlement is strong in this one.
Mr. Kelly, please stop producing drama and inducing others to do so. WP:IAR doesn't mean that you can forget about the rules or breach with precedent unless you can find a specific flaw with them, not because you don't feel like it. Other than that, I congratulate you on your revolutionary political theories.
Obvious civility robots are obvious
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
There are allegedly the fundamental pillars, though like the US Constitution they are subject to interpretation. The biggest joke of course is WP:IAR. Beyond that, policies get altered all the time, people attempt to cite guidelines as binding policies and, the ultimate nonsense, "it may not be against the rules but I can't find another case where it's done like that".
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
You said "Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it." So you are declaring yourself not bound by policy. The alternate thing you suggest you go by, the "thoughts of the majority of the community," is a ludicrous smokescreen. Or do you have psychic powers? By what other means do you divine the will of the community? Besides, all of Wikipedia's editors are "the community," what you refer to is those that populate your insular world of arbitrators and WP:AN/ANI, and they are *not* the community.AGK wrote:This was actually the point I was making: even if policy does not say it's wrong to do X, that doesn't mean it's right to do X. People on Wikipedia seem to think that we need to quote a sentence, paragraph, and section of policy every time we do something. However, policy is written as we go along, meaning quite often common practice isn't properly recorded. And then some guy turns up to say "this thing that we do all the time is not permitted by any policy I can see", or "this thing we do all the time is contradicted by this policy" and demands we stop doing it. My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy, not expect every outcome to be codified.Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.
In other words, "we ignore policy when we see fit to do so." "We are not bound by policy." "And that stuff people used to chant about consensus? It's really been majority rule all along." "Who is this "community" I keep referring too? Why it's us arbs of course, and the admins at WP:AN/ANI."AGK [•] 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) wrote:As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it. Therefore, the best question isn't whether policy prohibits banned users from editing their talk page, but "Does a majority of the community think we should automatically revoke their talk page access?"
I'm fairly baffled by how you've arrived at the opinion that I think I can do what I want, but I guess you can't let anything get in the way of a great subject line. Did you learn to argue by reading the Daily Mail?
You didn't appear to be saying "if policy does not say it's wrong to do X, that doesn't mean it's right to do X." What a double-negative headscratcher that statement is. You're boldly fighting the views of those who argue that everything not forbidden by policy must therefore be just and proper? Who says that? I went and looked at the conversation at your talkpage. The question is whether a banned user like Kiefer Wolfowitz should be able to edit his talkpage. The policy says "maybe." Bishonen tried to clear up the policy to say "may be restricted" but Bbb23 casually reverted him or her to his disciplinarian preference "usually restricted." You take the position that the talkpage access of a banned user should be determined not by policy but by the "thoughts of the majority of the community."
I like the Daily Mail, but I didn't need it to understand your policy-denigrating comment. If not policy, then what's to stop you and the rest from doing what you want?
Triptych. A Live Journal I have under other pseudonym, w. email address: Tim Song Fan. My Arbcom Accountability Project: in German. In art.
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
Triptych wrote: You didn't appear to be saying "if policy does not say it's wrong to do X, that doesn't mean it's right to do X." What a double-negative headscratcher that statement is. You're boldly fighting the views of those who argue that everything not forbidden by policy must therefore be just and proper? Who says that? I went and looked at the conversation at your talkpage. The question is whether a banned user like Kiefer Wolfowitz should be able to edit his talkpage. The policy says "maybe." Bishonen tried to clear up the policy to say "may be restricted" but Bbb23 casually reverted him or her to his disciplinarian preference "usually restricted." You take the position that the talkpage access of a banned user should be determined not by policy but by the "thoughts of the majority of the community."
AN/I dickmittens and their associated masturbators wrote: WE THE ASSHOLES of the Wikipedia noticeboards does solemnly declare our independence from the content-writers of Wikipedia. We grow tired of oppression by our content-writer overlords, who have come to see that our manipulation of Wikipedia's policies is based not on consensus, but on mutual agreement among ourselves and, in some cases, on individual preference. We believe that our long mockery for our inability to write at an adequate level for content has violated WP:CIVIL and caused a tragically enormous level of pain and suffering for us. The questioning of our suitability for functioning roles by Wikipediocracy has been a further violation of WP:NPA, and we become vewy vewy sad when our flaws are pointed out, but go on the defensive whenever one of our own is found to be violating social norms and perhaps the law. In the interest of this Declaration, we pledge our barnstars, cabals, and our sacred Basements.
PS: Further signatures will be processed on a "seekrit" basis through Teh IRC™. Teh IRC™ will also contain instructions on how to create drama and lulz.
Obvious civility robots are obvious
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31774
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
First against the wall in the the wiki cleansing during the reign of Vigilant the Just.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
I have generally ignored the 'manual of style' and any time anyone attempts to call me on it, point them to 'guideline' and tell them to get lost. Politely of course.Randy from Boise wrote: any bozo can arbitrarily change the Manual of Style and they just might not get called on it,
It works about 75% of the time (for me) if the person is un-invested in the subject. If they are actively interested in it, then we usually discuss it and can work something out.
The small % who are both not really interested in the subject, and fanatical about MOS issues, usually end up banned sooner or later, at which point I just wander through and start reverting their idiocy. I am patient, I don't mind waiting for people's natures to get the better of them. Frog/scorpion etc.
- thekohser
- Majordomo
- Posts: 13410
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
- Wikipedia User: Thekohser
- Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
- Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
In light of recent events, this is comedy gold.AGK wrote:My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy...
And Jesus said, "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to his employer before he shall smite thee on the other".
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: AGK the Policy Theorist Redefines Policy: "I Do What I W
Lol, thats perfect. In light of me and the arbcom this seems an appropriately self deprecating icon.thekohser wrote:In light of recent events, this is comedy gold.AGK wrote:My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy...
And Jesus said, "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to his employer before he shall smite thee on the other".