Wikipediocracy

I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.

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?"

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."

Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.

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?"

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."

Stare decisis is for chumps.

Triptych wrote:Why it's us arbs of course, and the stupid dickmittens and their masturbators at WP:AN/ANI."

Fixed that for you.

Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.

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?"

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."

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.

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?

AGK wrote:

Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.

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?"

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."

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.

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?

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.

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

AGK wrote: My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy, not expect every outcome to be codified.

Liar.

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.

AGK wrote:

Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.

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?"

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."

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.

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 assume a basement-dwelling neckbeard like your good self gets all its "opinions" from The Sun.

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:

Wer900 wrote:

Triptych wrote:Why it's us arbs of course, and the stupid dickmittens and their masturbators at WP:AN/ANI."

Fixed that for you.

Thanks. That is what I meant to say.

AGK wrote: Even if policy does not say it's wrong to do X, that doesn't mean it's right to do X.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

AGK wrote:

Triptych wrote:I noticed that right honorable arbitrator and cutting edge policy theorist AGK/Anthony G. Kelly publicly laying out Arbcom's core principle.

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?"

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."

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.

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 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.

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 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.

• Beeblebrox (T-C-L)
• Demiurge1000 (T-C-L)
• AGK (T-C-L)
• Timotheus Canens (T-C-L)
• Kww (T-C-L)
• Apteva (T-C-L)
• Russavia (T-C-L)
• Mattbuck (T-C-L)
• Bwilkins (T-C-L)
• Fæ (T-C-L)
• Baseball Bugs (T-C-L)
• Sandstein (T-C-L)

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.

First against the wall in the the wiki cleansing during the reign of Vigilant the Just.

Randy from Boise wrote: any bozo can arbitrarily change the Manual of Style and they just might not get called on it,

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.

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.

Yawn.

AGK wrote:My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy...

In light of recent events, this is comedy gold.

And Jesus said, "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to his employer before he shall smite thee on the other".

thekohser wrote:

AGK wrote:My position was that we ought to use the Golden rule when interpreting policy...

In light of recent events, this is comedy gold.

And Jesus said, "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to his employer before he shall smite thee on the other".

Lol, thats perfect. In light of me and the arbcom this seems an appropriately self deprecating icon.