Wikipedia talk:Asshole John rule

Ableism

It was likely unintentional as most people have never stopped to think about it, but the word lame is considered ableist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism It needs to be corrected on the page it links to also. Zegrid (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

References

That would be true if people with physical disabilities of the legs and feet were still called lame in English, which has not been true since ca. the 1960s. Language changes over time, and words both take on radically different new meanings, and lose their original ones. This process works both ways; e.g. gay has lost its original sense of 'happy, joyful', and saying that's so gay is a low-grade slur, because it refers negatively to homosexuals and has no connection to the original meaning of the word. Likewise, but in reverse, slang use of lame to mean 'tiresome, petty, childish, tedious, or otherwise a waste of time' descends from figurative use (as found in "middle-ground" phrases like lame-duck president, lame excuse, etc.), and itself has no more direct connection to the concept 'walks with a limp' than that's so gay has to 'joyous'. The fact that some thought-policing busybodies have tried very hard to find offense in the term lame isn't evidentiary of anything other than that some people have too much time on their hands and skin that so thin you can see through it. It's been my experience that they're they same sort of people who take offense to terms like mankind and humanity and history and woman for having the character strings man or his in them, but who have no understanding of etymology and other aspects of historical linguistics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not "lame" is or isn't a slur, it is still an insult and thus not WP:CIVIL. Hyacinth (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

m:Instruction creep

This essay is right, but it's itself an example of a new "AJ rule", because this concept was supposed to be conveyed by the existing "Instruction creep" essay. If that essay lost its meaning, revert the harmful edits! m:Instruction creep has the original quotation in good visibility: «"We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches" is code for "Greg fucked up."» --Nemo 12:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree, for several reasons. First, this essay isn't a rule and doesn't seek to be one. Second, essays on Meta are virtually never consulted at en.WP any longer (we have our own WP:CREEP), except in a few cases where we pointedly soft-redirect there (e.g. with WP:JERK). Third, neither of these instruction-creep pages are/were rules, either, just more essays. Fourth, there is no evidence either has "lost its meaning"; people simply aren't absorbing it (probably because WP:CREEP doesn't tell a story, and Meta:CREEP tells one that only office works really relate to). Fifth, the purpose of an essay like the present one is to present an argument in particular terms that shed new light, for a certain cluster of people, on pre-existing principles; by your reasoning, we'd delete most of the essays WP has since they are all written on the shoulders of previous giants, to mix some metaphors.

I don't disagree that the funny example relating to Greg's fucked up design sketches is essentially the same story, but there is no principle by which the same story cannot or should not be told in new ways. According to folklorists and other literary and media scholars, humanity's entire repertoire of storytelling can be reduced to a quite simple catalogue of motifs, plotlines (assemblages of motifs), and morals (in the "moral of the story" sense, not the "principles of ethics and morality" sense, though those are of a fixed number as well). In short: there's a big difference between retelling an old tale in a few framework in an essay people are free to ignore, and burdening the WP rule system with essentially mandatory requirements that were never needed except to address the misbehavior of one or a few long-departed assholes.

PS: Meta:Instruction creep is superior in several ways to WP:Avoid instruction creep, so I've added it as a "See also" entry with a note to that effect.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly not forbidden nor immoral to "fork" an essay to your own variant. I guess I tried to say that I feel it adds a small cognitive cost for those wishing to remember what title they wanted to link (IMHO it's easier to remember "m:instruction creep" than an imaginatively named title). Nemo 22:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Causality loop

@SMcCandlish: The story as currently presented by this page is impossible or very unclear. It is explained that because a pre-existing rule, nicknamed the AJR, existed it was newly created and given a new yet pre-existing nickname. This puts us in a sci-fi/fantasy time loop. It also says that because the pre-existing AJR was exploited the new AJR was created to prevent exploitation (which is like burning down your house because it's on fire). I think there's a good story in here but I'd like that to be brought to the surface. First, I think the player with the bad reputation should be identified as John, thus establishing a connection between his actions and his informal punishment via the nickname which presumably refers to him. Hyacinth (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the confusion point is, but will re-read it. The short version is someone bent a long-standing general rule to mean something it obviously was not intended to mean (gamed the system, wikilawyered, as it were), by exploiting that it technically could be interpreted a certain way due to exactly how it was worded. No one else interpreted it that way, but he kept pushing the matter (which stopped matches and resulted in calls to league directors multiple times per seasons, etc. = disruptive editing). So the league board inserted a clarification, a micro-rule, after the original rule just to contradict him and get him to STFU, despite literally no one else, league-wide, agreeing with his interpretation. The whole point of the story is that if the community for which the rules exist doesn't need the rule, don't add one; if some individual is being an ass-pain, just deal with that person some other way. Anyway, the AJR is not the original general rule that John bent through fallacy of equivocation to manufacture a loop-hole; the AJR was the add-on rule the board inserted to shut down his [mis]interpretation. After I get a nap then some coffee, I'll look it over and see about a rewrite to make it flow more clearly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Reworded it a bit. Didn't spend that much time on it; may have another pass.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

nice page

this is freaking nice.187.39.132.210 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

        duck

Example for the lead

I'd recommend reworking the lead to state the specific Asshole John rule at the pool league, and to give a specific example. That is, I recommend telling a story with a specific example, a specific original rule, and the exact text of the Asshole John rule. Right now the lead is a bit general, and after reading it, I am unable to clearly understand the rule or its meaning. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes no sense to tell the whole story and then not say what the actual rule was. jp×g 11:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Possibility for a rename

Surely there are plenty of alternatives out there?

One key issue I have isn't so much about the word choice in and of itself, it's that when citing this to someone else, if they don't read the page first, or even if they misunderstand its application in a given situation, it could look like a personal attack.

Alternative names for clarity would be most welcome. - jc37 13:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for another shortcut

WP:RULESWANKING -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)