Phil Sandifer wrote:
I'll decline, but is "willfully misreading
claims to construct straw
man arguments and thus have a position of alleged moral superiority" in
the article? Because if not, it really should be.
As for your other complaint, Wikipedia policy pages are descriptive.
When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more
working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still around
so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a particular style
of solution to a particular style of problem becomes regular, we might
get around to writing a policy page about it, but we're more likely to
go watch TV.
I see no problem here. Someone with the username "Involved in trolling"
made what appear to be good faith edits (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Involved_in_trolling
), and was blocked without an explanation. I'm not bringing this up
because it's against policy but because it doesn't make sense.