Wikipedia talk:Wikilawyering/Archive 1

message: I have proposed a merger, because this is basically a wiki dictdef that doesn't necessarily deserve its special page.  Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be commonly used.  Ingoolemo talk 01:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used from time to time by members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration committee. Fred Bauder 01:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, this is Wikipedia space, isn't it?  I don't see any reason for a merge.  But, I've added the definition to Wikipedia:Glossary along with a link to this page.  Friday (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok, but Wikipedia:Glossary#W is not a sufficiently detailed explanation for arbitration committee purposes. Please don't delete this page. Fred Bauder 01:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that this topic isn't adequately covered in the G
lossary.  But I saw no harm in putting a one-sentence definition plus a link to this page there.  I wouldn't want to see this page go away either.  Friday (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: Is it not the case that when this term is utilized to describe the conduct of a Wikipedian it is pejoratively used? Netscott 17:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hope is that folks reading this article will address the substance of a matter and not try to snow us with inappropriate legal terminology and arguments. Fred Bauder 17:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand but I have seen use of this term and sooner thought, "hmm, that usage doesn't strike me as having been done while assuming good faith". Does that not make sense? It's a bit like the fact that citing WP:DICK is a bit of a dick move in and of itself.  Netscott 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind if I made a post on WP:AN and see what others think? Netscott 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pejorative?

message: How does one actually defend oneself against accusations of wikilawyering? It seems to me that by selectively using it, TPTB can effectively hold different users to different standards. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question?

message: JA: Cute quotations from the Bard aside, I do not see any reason why WP should encourage this defamatory language against the legal profession.  There are already well-used technical terms in philosophy and debate for what is being described here — I recommend that we chagnge the name to use one of them, say "WikiCaviling" or something similar.  Jon Awbrey 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I've sometimes seen people write derogatory remarks that compare lawyers to cockroaches, and this must stop... it's unnecessarily demeaning to cockroaches! *Dan T.* 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Wikilawyering" is the term that is used but I suspect that the term has been used pejoratively against Jon Awbrey and he's editing in response. Although I've used the term myself, I've done so knowing that it was not the most politically correct word to use. Being that Wikipedia is NOT censored I'm not sure how politically correct it needs to be in a question such as this. (→Netscott) 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's trivially obvious to predict how the conflict between Jon's ideals and the workings of Wikipedia will eventually be resolved if he continues to work on the basis of move-warring before bothering with such apparent trivialities as convincing anyone else of his good faith and correctness - David Gerard 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've put a note to admins at WP:ANI#User:Jon_Awbrey_and_Wikipedia:Wikilawyering - David Gerard 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The term is wikilaywering.  What else is there to say?  You cannot treat wikipedia guidelines and policies like a lawyer can treat laws, you can't play games with them, and they aren't set in stone.  If you choose to get all technical with reguards to wikipedia's naming policies and guidelines, that is wikilawyering too. Kevin_b_er 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitration committee would welcome professional legal help. What we object to is inappropriate amateur pettifoggery. Fred Bauder 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Call to Defame a Segment of Society

message: Either can the page editing be unprotected (Jon is unlikely to try this again w/o discussion I would hope), leaving move protection), or at the very least, change Wikicaviling back to WikiLawyering?
:He's been blocked so there is likely no futher need for protection. (→Netscott) 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection 

message: :Wikilawyering the term "wikilawyer" is not the Wikipedia Gödel number and does not win you any special prizes.
Removed the above as it seems nonsensical. - RoyBoy 800 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put back the word rationale over reliable sources, though. This this type of behavior occurs outside of articles.  Reliable sources doesn't make sense in the context of people wikilawyering when they're blocked or when they're in arbitration with the arbitration committee. Kevin_b_er 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, slightly obscure mathematical joke. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says that any formal system sufficiently powerful to use cannot prove its own completeness; the Godel number is the number that demonstrates the system's incompleteness. This is analogous to the notion some wikilawyers have that they can prove policy mathematically incorrect and thus ignore it. (And the notion that sufficient policy can cure blatant trolling or really creative stupidity, said notion being the source of instruction creep.) I figured we were in the company of geeks and a link would illustrate what it meant well enough. See also Does not compute - David Gerard 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godel? 

message: I added that this is used as a "pejorative term" because frankly, it just is. That's not inherently a bad thing. It's just silly to deny. It's not like anyone says "Bob is a great WikiLawyer, he should make a good admin" and so on. It's always used as a criticism. According to our article "A word or phrase is pejorative if it implies contempt or disapproval". Seems pretty clear. --W.marsh 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is typically used pejoratively but I have used it non-pejoratively (in saying that my comments may seem like an example of ... etc. etc.  ). I touched on this previously but didn't get much response. (→Netscott) 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pejorative term 

message: Somebody moved this page to Wikipedia:Pettifoggery. But they only fixed one redirect, WP:LAWYER. I moved the page back, but can't fix that redirect as it is protected. Could an admin please fix it? -999 (Talk) 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected the page, but please consider supporting the move to Wikipedia:Pettifoggery. It is a much more appropriate name. Fred Bauder 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Having created the article in the first place and written the original essay, I guess I don't see the thing as fixed. Fred Bauder 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing to another term seems reasonable to me. Wikilitigate? Like, "oh quit your Wikilitigating!"? Could be shortened to Wikigation and Wikigating.  From lawsuit, "The conduct of a lawsuit is called litigation." (→Netscott) 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strikes no sparks. Fred Bauder 01:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like "pettifoggery"... sounds quaintly Victorian or something.  So far, of all the possibilities, "Wikilawyering" still sounds best. *Dan T.* 02:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move and broken redirect 

message: The current title is perfectly good.  Lawyers are not an oppressed or downtrodden segment of society, so it comes off as disengenuous to compare this title to actual slurs. Durova 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought RfC was a call for outside opinions, not the participants in the dispute. Durova 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: The article currently says "(All this assumes that we are talking about internal matters; the Wikimedia Foundation of course provides overall governance.)"
I think it would be helpful to clarify the exact legal role of the Foundation. Examples: They own the servers. The software and data is copyleft and thus available to all. As a not-for-profit organization under an educational charter financial support (computer hosting for example) of noneducational material (a novel at wikibooks for example) is legally questionable. Content of a given article can be "governed" by someone or some group everyone else accepts as its keeper (good people are given wide latitute). Most policies of individual language wikipedias are determined by consensus of the participants of that language wikipedia. The Foundation sets overall policy most especially dealing with staying legal and avoiding lawsuits. The State of Florida and the Unites States of America have and create laws that establish important boundaries concerning legal liability, privacy rights, defamation, fundraising, conflict of interest and so forth. WAS 4.250 07:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quoted language is the end of a new paragraph which I don't think I would support as written. What you seek to clarify is what external laws might be applicable to Wikipedia or the Foundation. If a law applies it would be helpful if that is clear. As to a novel at wikibooks, I note novels at the library at our local college. Fred Bauder 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: "under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia administrators or the Arbitration Committee are obligated to follow agreed upon wikipedia policies." No misunderstanding. We are obligated to follow agreed on Wikipedia policies. Fred Bauder 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreed on policies

message: Moved from article:
One feature differentiating Wikipeda policy from law is that our policies are not handed down by a higher body.  Wikipedia has an executive branch of sorts (administrators, bureaucrats, the Arbitration Committee), but "legislative" power is held by the community as a whole.  This has the important implication that any decision can be re-visited.  A rule without community support is meaningless; there is no inherent power in the text of a policy page.  The text is just the embodiment of the opinions and decisions of the community. If there is consensus that a rule should ignored in a particular instance, or that it should be interpreted in a particular way, there is no higher power to object.  There is no reason to closely analyze the text of a policy, because the policies were written by Wikipedians, and are interpreted in whatever way we choose.  (All this assumes that we are talking about internal matters; the Wikimedia Foundation of course provides overall governance.)
:Despite the obvious fact that policies are written by Wikipedians and subject to re-editing the arbitration committee looks closely at the text of policies and tries to interpret them. We may also look at the editing history of the policy and the talk page. We have very limited ability as we consider some particular matter to know what the consensus of the community is regarding policy, unless it is written down on a policy page. What we can sometimes tell is if someone is quoting scripture while sinning, using perverse interpretations of policy to justify disruption. The most obvious is the POV warrior who always comments "NPOV" while engaged in his point of view editing. Fred Bauder 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questionable assertions

message: : Wikipedia talk:WikiLawyering - Inappropriate name by WP standards. Project name is derogatory toward a segment of society, on a par with ethnic and racial slurs. Discussed on talk page and suggested adoption of the established technical term "caviling" from philosophy and debate. Made change but had it reverted. 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikilawyering, inappropriate legal posturing, is to be distinguished from effective advocacy, either on your own behalf or on behalf of another. Effective advocacy in the context of an arbitration case involves marshaling of evidence (diffs, usually) which is relevant to the issues involved in the arbitration and common sense discussion of how the behavior in question relates to Wikipedia policy. This is really no different from most work done by skilled attorneys. Fred Bauder 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that makes sense to me.  I guess I see a difference between effective advocacy at Wikipedia and effective advocacy in a court of law, and that difference seems to be precisely what we mean when we say people shouldn't understand our policies and guidelines "legalistically".  In other words, Wikilawyering, to my mind, means placing a higher value on The Rules (tm) than one places on common sense.  In court, the wording of the statute is the ultimate arbiter.  Here, the precise wording of the policy page means very little, in comparison to the common-sense principle behind it, right?  Maybe I'm talking about something different from Wiki-lawyering... -GTBacchus(talk) 22:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Via [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues]] 

message: I had the mind to revert Centrx's edit and keep the etimology, but I'm not sure if Wikilawyering comes from rules lawering specifically. I'd guess that most people have never heard about a rules lawyer, and unless anyone has any specific information, it doesn't seem clear to me that rules lawyer is where the term originated from. Fresheneesz 05:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etimology