User:Tryptofish/Lazy policy arguments

Editors discussing policy changes

Some common arguments used in discussions about policies are logically incorrect and intellectually lazy. This essay dissects some popular but invalid arguments that frequently arise when editors are discussing proposed changes to Wikipedia policies. You can think of it as Arguments to avoid in policy discussions, but with a generous helping of satire. And rhetorical flourishes. And sarcasm. With whipped cream on top.

If, after reading it, you feel better able to conduct a useful discussion about a potential policy change, that's great! It's what I intend it for.

If, on the other hand, you find yourself sputtering with rage, please wipe the spittle from your lips, that's very gross! Perhaps it's because you see yourself in one of these descriptions. Which is fine with me: I never liked you anyway. Don't even think of changing anything here to make yourself look better. I'll revert you, hunt you down, and steal your lunch money. Instead, try writing your own essay, in rebuttal. And please keep in mind that, although I'm basing these caricatures on comments that I have actually seen, this isn't about you personally. It's about the logic of the arguments, not about the editor.

Although they can apply to any policy discussion, these examples focus on discussions about administrator policy and blocks, because those are particularly prone to eliciting knee-jerk reactions whenever anyone suggests making a change. But I want to make a caveat about change. Even though these examples show flawed rationales for opposing change, that doesn't mean that change is always a good thing. Sometimes, even many times, proposals for change should not be adopted. Wikipedia has a vast trove of failed proposals that should have failed. I should know: I've been responsible for quite a few of them myself! It's still helpful to propose an idea that fails, because someone else may figure out a way to improve upon it to make something good. Just make sure that you present a thoughtful argument for supporting or opposing.

The creep

“ 'Oppose' as instruction creep ”

This one is pure genius: it works for any occasion! Almost any policy change can be dismissed as instruction creep. Of course, instruction creep is a real thing, and there may be no benefit in adding unnecessary details. But if a proposal is unnecessary, one should be able to explain why.

There's also a more rococo variant:

“ I almost never like to add more clauses to policies. Every time you add something more, it becomes something more that a user can game and quibble about. We should leave policies as they are. (I guess that if this was always the case, then nobody could ever have written a policy in the first place. But those were the early days of Wikipedia. Some time ago, we reached a magic point, where everything that needed to be covered in policies was covered. Now, we don't need anything more.) ”

In another variant, The Creep and Tweedledee (just below) have a love child:

“ We don't need to spell this out. It's self-evident. Any editor who doesn't realize this without being told doesn't belong here. ”

Obviously, there are some things that are so... obvious that this is true. But when there are users who are clearly not getting the message, then it becomes much harder to see the logic behind this argument. Sometimes, the editor making this argument is actually angry at a specific editor whose conduct led to the proposal, and their anger gets in the way of seeing the general case.

Tweedledee and Tweedledumber

Tweedledee

“ We don't need to spell this out. Admins are generally clueful. Any admin who doesn't know this already is a bad admin. (But if you propose anything about desysopping, I'll oppose that too.) ”

Tweedledumber

“ We don't need to spell this out. Admins are all corrupt. They won't pay attention to it anyway. We should let Wikipedia continue to be dysfunctional. That'll show 'em! ”

The macho man

Further information: Reaction formation

“ I was blocked myself. And it was no big deal. In fact, I see it as a badge of honor! If other users don't want to be blocked, then they shouldn't do anything that will get them blocked. We should never correct block logs, because they document how bad the blocks actually were. (Well, actually, the block hurt my feelings at the time. But I've figured out that by saying this, I don't have to feel bad about it any more. So if you allow other users to acknowledge that they feel bad, the house of cards I constructed for myself will collapse. I cannot allow that. Oppose.) ”

The problem here happens when other editors do have hurt feelings. No editor deserves to have their feelings hurt, even if they have behaved badly, and nobody should enjoy or be indifferent to someone else's hurt feelings. So even if you do not have hurt feelings, that's not a valid reason to be insensitive to the editors who do.

The owner

This isn't really an argument. Instead, it's a pattern of behavior.

1. An editor makes a good faith edit to the policy page.
2. The owner reverts it, and then faithfully goes to the talk page to explain why, per WP:BRD.
3. On the talk page, the good faith editor and other editors discuss the owner's objections, and carefully craft a revised version that fixes the things that the owner did not like.
4. On the talk page, the good faith editor asks if there are any objections to this new version, and waits several days for replies.
5. Crickets.
6. The good faith editor concludes that there are no objections, and implements the edit.
7. The owner immediately reverts.

Of course, if an inexperienced user did what the owner did, they would be in trouble for WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. But if you have been here long enough and gotten enough advanced permissions, you can do this with impunity. Just make sure that you stroke your chin pensively, and intone solemnly that policy changes should only be made after extensive discussion and consensus. Bonus points for demanding an RfC.

There's a variant that might be called "the owner's neighbor":

1. An editor makes a good faith edit to the policy page.
2. The owner' neighbor reverts it, saying that they reverted it "because you didn't discuss this first".
3. The good faith editor goes to the talk page and asks what the objections were.
4. The reply: "My objections? I don't have any objections. It's a great proposal. I reverted because someone else might object."
5. The good faith editor asks if there are any objections from other editors.
6. Crickets.

This gambit is really just The creep in another costume. It's good to discuss policy changes before making them, and necessary for anything that will be a big change, but some things are inherently noncontroversial and do not need to be discussed just for the sake of discussion. Still, a talk page proposal first is always the safest approach.

The reading-impaired

This one is similar to the owner, just above, with forms of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT.

“ I reverted it because there has been too much discussion on the talk page for me to keep track of. When editors discuss policies on policy talk pages, that's annoying, and I don't have time to read the discussions. It doesn't matter if there was consensus for that change. Policies should be stable, so just leave them alone. ”

It can be understandable that many discussions get tl;dr, and it's true that policies should not be changed without consensus. But that's not an excuse to revert something just because you couldn't be bothered to read what other editors said. If you care about a policy, keep it on your watchlist, and pay attention when the talk page shows discussion of something you care about – even if you don't read every other discussion there. If you are going to revert something, you not only should be able to explain why, but you should make that explanation with a good understanding of the preceding discussions and with some confidence that there really was not a consensus for the change. If you cannot do that, go to the talk page, raise your concern, and ask if editors had already considered that.

The producer of odorless excrement

“ Admins all stand up for one another, so no one can ever hold them accountable. If a content editor challenges them, the content editor will always lose, with all the admins ganging up on them. That's terrible, because content editors are the editors who make Wikipedia what it is. Admins are just hat collectors, and couldn't write content if their lives depended on it. This is a hopeless problem, and can never be changed. It's a waste of time to propose anything, or to support a proposal for change. The best that good editors can do is to keep our heads down, work on content, and avoid anything on noticeboards. ”

There's actually some truth in this: administrators are here to help keep a good environment for content creation, not the other way around. And if an editor just wants to work on content and avoid drama, good for them! But admins are, for the most part, not "out to get" content editors. And using this as an excuse for opposing reform is a cop-out.

The auditor

“ I'm not seeing the examples of (whatever is under discussion) that everyone is talking about. I cannot support this proposal unless someone provides clear evidence that the problem is happening repeatedly. ”

In this case, context matters, because most of the time evidence is something that ought to be collected and presented as part of a policy proposal. Evidence is a good thing, and it is frequently reasonable to ask for it. But in some contexts, such as when the events include issues of the privacy of the users who were involved, the request is made with the knowledge that presenting data will be problematic, in an attempt to slow down a proposal. If multiple users, particularly those with the appropriate permissions to know about it, are agreeing that a problem exists, a single editor who comes along and, in effect, implies that they all must be wrong may be doing so because that editor cannot come up with a better reason to oppose.

Roadkill

“ I was once the victim of (whatever problem is being discussed here). It was a horrible experience, and just about drove me off Wikipedia. (I don't edit content any more, but I still watch this policy page.) If you haven't experienced what I went through, you can't understand how unpleasant it was for me. So I oppose any changes here, at all. If you weaken this, it will just make things easier for those users who made life difficult for me. ”

This one, I actually have a lot of sympathy for. Policies should protect good faith editors from bad experiences. And we shouldn't weaken anything that needs to be kept strong. But sometimes emotion gets in the way of actually considering what a proposal is: What, you made a spelling correction? Don't change this policy!