User:Vassyana/Splitting Hairs

There is a trend of some people hanging on every bit of red tape and relying on the exact wording of the rules (and arbitration remedies) over the spirit thereof. This is a really a matter the community needs to address, because it is pervasive and hardly limited to arbitration decisions.

Naming the problem
This kind of behavior has long been discouraged (under the names "gaming the system" and "WikiLawyering"), but the community's tolerance has been generous and enforcement no better than tepid.

Most common example
The claim that 3RR was not reached or breached is used on a regular basis to argue down allegations of edit warring. This is when the very wording of 3RR explicitly notes that three reverts is not an allowance and that blocks may be issued for any edit warring.

The AGF battlecry
We need to be careful not to bite well-meaning new editors. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should assume editors are acting with good intentions. However, AGF (assume good faith) becomes a tool to game the system on occasion. It is often used to turn the tables when an editor is acting disruptively, by attempting to frame the accusing editor as the disruptive party. Additionally, editors can still be disruptive when acting in good faith. There's the common trope about the road to hell and good intentions, and it's perfectly apt. I'm sure most editors trying to share "The Truth" really mean well.