User:AttemptToCallNil/Problematic arguments

This page lists arguments that I consider inappropriate, yet recall seeing in conversations. This is in addition to typical logical fallacies and a substantial portion of Wikipedia's "Arguments to avoid" pages (though see below).

Are you sure this is necessary?
Shortcut: What will you achieve when you ask people to question their own actions without telling them any specific issues? Yes, it may result in nothing but that they find a couple issues and fix them. Or not a couple, but a lot.

Or it may result in that they start questioning their own actions so much that their view slowly and subtly shifts to the opposite one; and instead of finding a balance, they do a lot of damage by irrationally rejecting themselves. Also, great job _probably_ making them need assistance from a mental health specialist.

Actually, in some cases, it's the latter result that is the intent of the doubt-inducer. It's impossible to distinguish between: 1) a well-meaning proponent of a less common point of view, and 2) a bad-faith actor who wishes to convert others to their point of view.

Your point will be heard much more clearly if you not just ask another "are you sure this can't be made better", but inform them of a specific, actionable issue they should be able to address.

Very problematic example:
 * Your wiki has too many overcomplicated templates. Most of them aren't really needed. -- (talk)
 * Do you have any specific suggestions? --I never  (talk?)
 * the thread never receives another comment

Problematic examples: (Says nothing about how to answer that question.)
 * In general, when you're looking at something more complex than a wikitext template no longer than a couple of lines, you should ask yourself, "Is this really needed?" --Never be certain (maybe talk)

(A slightly different form of this issue where the question is asked implicitly. Also makes apparent how this issue relates to demands of perfection.)
 * Only submit changes when you're absolutely sure they don't contain a single mistake. --Perfection is achievable ( talk )

It just works!
Shortcut: Many people, when discussing problems, propose solutions that they know to work. These people may even suggest others don't try to use complex logic to derive a satisfactory solution; a good solution is stated to be already available.

Except nothing "just works". First, "it works" needs to be defined. And it will probably turn out there are multiple definitions of "it works", not all of them reconcilable. Second, even assuming a definition of "it works" is chosen, there is a mechanism that makes things "work". Trying to understand this mechanism is important for making better solutions. Perhaps it can be made to work better? Perhaps it works, but causes an undesired side effect that can be reduced or eliminated? Perhaps it doesn't even work, but only gives an illusion that it does?

It is most useful to define specific goals and regularly perform in-depth analysis of used tools to ensure that the tools serve the goals optimally. What is it some people are trying to accomplish by telling others that they shouldn't seek better understanding of what they want and how they achieve it?

Problematic example:
 * What are you all arguing about? It's obvious Solution X is what you all really want, any experienced person knows that it works! --I am very experienced (talk)

Non-problematic example:
 * I think Solution X works for both of you: it solves Problem A by [explanation], and it bypasses Problem B entirely through [explanation]. --One who catches both hares (talk)

That's just the way it is!
Shortcut: When some party imposes its will on another, no matter who or what these parties are, they are humans or human constructs. They are not forces of nature (though see ), they are not deities (all of which are most likely human fabrication anyway). The party in control has its own interests, at best orthogonal and at worst diametrically opposed to those of the parties they control. The party in control, as any finite system, is fallible, and will not use optimal strategies to reach its own interests.

There are many structurally substandard statements used as thought-terminating clichés. They carry no meaning beyond telling others "Stop thinking in ways we don't want you to!" - while making this statement indirect (and therefore deniable), so those few with sufficient competence to identify the suppressive intent will find themselves defenseless against the mob that is incapable of recognizing the issue and is used and headed by the totalitarian entity to destroy the undesired individuals.

"That is what it is" is one such thought-terminating cliché. Those willing to use it are some of the most destructive people around - and probably beyond the line of Gray's law.

Problematic examples: (Note that the second part of the CM's statement introduces a false dilemma.)
 * This article loads so long on my internet connection because of all those ads and five megabytes of tracking cookies! --Sincerely, a concerned citizen (talk)
 * I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. Would you prefer we removed all these ads and tracking, only to become unable to pay our bills in a couple months? --Wallace Breen [Community Manager] (talk)

(1. See also . 2. The admin's username also violates the 3-digit rule; this is an intentional part of the example.)
 * Why would your rules prohibit users from having more than 3 digits in their username? That harms nothing, as you can see by that I've been a successful admin on the Russian Terraria Wiki for over 6 years. --Fahrenheit0451 (talk)
 * The rules are what they are. If you don't agree with them, stop using the wiki. --Best Admin of 2017 (talk)

Thought-terminating clichés are often accompanied by other problematic statements.

We need to have rules! (The ones we have now.)
Shortcut: I am a strong proponent of the "Ignore all rules" principle. No, I am also a very strong opponent of ignoring rules randomly. When you do something that may breach, or will breach, policy, there most definitely should be an extensive explanation as to why the breach actually helps serve the greater purpose behind the rules.

Of course, a perfect policy never needs to be broken to make an improvement. But perfect things do not exist. Though it doesn't mean we should just say "meh, it won't be perfect, so why bother improving?" Rather the inverse, when we can make it clearer for everyone that some improvement is welcome, we should.

But it is not possible to think of a better version of a rule without some goal more fundamental than that rule. When someone tries to avoid setting such a more fundamental goal, we may end up with the kind of argument that is the reason why I wrote this section.

When a point of policy is being questioned, it is not meaningful to use that same point of policy to dismiss the concern.

Problematic examples: (Also potentially cyclic reasoning, if not reiteration, if upon inspection it turns out the meanings of "not allowed to do Q" and "should not do Q", as used in the second user's response, are identical.)
 * Rule N states we aren't allowed to do X, Y, and Z. But actually, what's the problem with Z? I've seen it done a couple of times in the last month, and from the looks of it, no one really thinks these actions weren't appropriate. --Descriptivist (talk)
 * Oppose: Rule N states we aren't allowed to do Z, therefore we shouldn't do Z. --Prescriptivist (talk)

(Just asking for this follow-up: "And it is prohibited because?.." Though people willing to make such an argument are unlikely to constructively address concerns about policy; they would rather suppress the questioning person with threats if not outright admin action.)
 * Rule N states we aren't allowed to do X. But what's the harm in doing X? It helps us avoid this problem: [description]. --Minus one problems (talk)
 * X is harmful because it is prohibited. --Order-Chaos binarist (talk)

(A variant that implicitly makes the improper statement "we need some rules, therefore we need these rules".)
 * Do we even need to have Rule N? The problem it's intended to minimize seems to be no longer relevant. --Modernist (talk)
 * Oppose, we need rules. --Ordnung muss sein (talk)

We have no obligation to do this!
Shortcut: When reading this section, you should keep in mind that I use the term "expectation" to refer to a sort of informal obligation.

Imagine a society where using obscene slang in public places is illegal. In this society, people have an obligation not to use such words in public places. Now imagine a society where there is no legal prohibition for obscene slang in public places, but it is still considered very rude by most people. In this other society, people no longer have an obligation not to use strong language, but from another perspective, people have an expectation that, when they're in a public place, other people: 1) will not use obscene slang; 2) expect other people to have expectations [1] and [2]. In this second society, using strong language on a street and dismissing a person who complains with "the law doesn't say I am not allowed to say this" would be considered very inappropriate.

Yes, there are many things you have no contractual, legal, or other formal obligation to do (or not do). However, in many cases, other people still expect that you do something are not required to. Using lack of a formal requirement as a first-resort response to a person stating their expectations is very disrespectful and doesn't contribute to community health.

Problematic examples:
 * Hey, could you please help me with [thing]? --I Need Help (talk)
 * I have no obligation to help you. --Give me freedom... or else (talk)


 * Hey, could you please explain your revert on [this page]? You left your summary empty. --I am undone (talk)
 * While I understand your confusion, ultimately I am not required to explain my actions to you. --Mysterious Stranger (talk)

Less problematic example: (note: I would have written it, not necessarily in these exact words, like "staff have their own lives and cannot be expected to perform noncritical tasks on weekends")
 * Any staff around? I need help with [thing] ASAP! --Now or Never! (talk)
 * You should realize it's Sunday, and staff have no obligation to respond to non-critical issues today. Yours can wait until their working hours. --Staff are people too (talk)

But that is subjective!
Shortcut: Why should there not be a system for appealing blocks by local admins? Because "bad block" and "bad admin" are subjective. Why is it better to just have admins determine every aspect of the wiki with little to no community input? Because wikis are not democracies, and community well-being is subjective.

Some people would have you think in these terms and none other. Though would these same people still voice their objections when staff stated they will revise the policies with blocks by community admins?

If "bad block" and "bad admin" are subjective, then so are "good block" and "good admin". The hidden statement is the presumption that an admin's action against an ordinary community member is acceptable. To the point that some people say it is unacceptable to have a system that may override this presumption by checking admin actions and potentially judging some admin actions to be inappropriate.

Would the people who use this presumption also oppose tools that staff impose on admins to control or restrict their actions? There is no evidence to suggest they won't. And if so, then the real problem become visible.

It's that so many people believe wrong can only be done by a person "below" to a person "above", much less (if at all) the inverse. On a related note, know what I think is a major reason older generations complain of declining morality? I think one major reason is that they liked to hold others "below" them accountable and punish them as they will, while not being held accountable themselves. And the fact they can now face severe penalties for wronging those "below" them is not something they consider acceptable. In other words, elimination of a double standard is very much not favored by the party that liked the double standard and applied it.

A poor approach to the problem of subjectivity is instruction creep. Yes, "excessive text color use" is subjective. Requiring people not to have more than exactly 100 colored characters in an article is not any better as the boundary is arbitrary. And there's very likely to happen a new and unforeseen use for text color overrides than needs more than 100 characters in an article without being excessive.

We're (not) like Wikipedia!
Shortcut: Minecraft Wiki is a wiki based on a rather modern version of the MediaWiki engine and maintained by a community of editors with the goal of creating a maximally complete and accurate information repository on some topic. In these ways, it's like Wikipedia.

Minecraft Wiki has a couple hundred active editors as opposed to Wikipedia's over 100,000 active editors. Minecraft Wiki has a few thousand articles and not a few million articles. Minecraft Wiki is hosted by a much smaller, for-profit company. Minecraft Wiki's topic is Minecraft and not real life. In these ways, it's not like Wikipedia.

With a large number of similarities and differences, just because something is used on Wikipedia (see note below) doesn't mean it will work great on Minecraft Wiki. Nor does it mean it will work poorly. A deeper inspection of the subject is warranted.

Problematic example: (That may go at length without addressing the actual issue...)
 * Let's make an arbitration committee, like on Wikipedia! --I <3 WP (talk)
 * Oppose, we're not Wikipedia. --I >:( WP (talk)

Non-problematic example:
 * Let's make an arbitration committee, like on Wikipedia! --I <3 WP (talk)
 * Oppose. We're a much smaller wiki, perhaps a hundred to a thousand times smaller. We do not need a dedicated structure to conflict resolution, as this is effectively our (much smaller) administration team. In addition, there is the wiki manager who is rather involved with wiki matters. --I <3 MCW (talk)