On 6/1/06, Jesse W <jessw(a)netwood.net> wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 6:13 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
If it were applied globally to the religious
userboxes, I wouldn't
have objected at all.
May I quote you on that? Specifically, may I have your
explicit
permission and request (on this mailing list) for anyone with the sysop
bit on the English edition of Wikipedia to speedy delete all the
userboxes listed on
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/
Religion&oldid=56262627 under the criteria CSD T2. If you truly agree
with this, it would certainly help.
Those who complain that the T1 speedy deletion criterion is being
applied unevenly are barking up the wrong tree. They'll all go in
good time, but it would be wrong to delete them all at once, without
allowing time for discussion over the application of policy, which is
still ongoing. The results of this slow, measured pace have been a
growing confidence and a steadier support for a broad application.
Although applications for deletion review are made more often for
templates than for any other type of deletion, there are relatively
few successful undeletions. Wikipedia policy is being restored to
template space.
The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather explicitly
said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would
bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox. Whether this is part
of a larger campaign intended to get them all eventually or not, you've
rather conclusively identified that you are using your personal judgement
and religous biases in selecting who goes when and how.
That's blatantly POV and disruptive.
Again: Deleting them all is fine by me. Tony deciding to delete the little
fringe ones that he personally hates first, not fine.
Agreeing with the end goal does not require agreeing with the methods or
ethics of someone's attempt to reach it. The presense of userboxes is not
as disruptive as tha approach you have chosen to take in trying to delete
them all, in my opinion. You think it's the way to gain consensus slowly on
the big issue. I agree that slowly gaining consensus is good, but this
method is disruptive and abusive.
(this posting and my previous one on this thread may be freely used under CC
attribution share-alike 2.5)
-george william herbert
gherbert(a)retro.com / gherbert(a)gmail.com