I've added this to my process essay (which I should declare "done" some time soon really). It's too long and too bitter. Your help is most welcomed.
* Prescriptive when it should be a guideline
** A lot of people think making things hard policy means people will actually follow them. This means editorial guidelines get phrased as didactic policy. This results in stupidity such as WP:RS (a guideline) being used by apparently insane robots as a reason to gut articles of content. ** Policy is harsh stuff, and there's a limit to how much people will hold in their heads. Everything that can be a guideline should be, because clueless editors won't understand it and bad faith editors won't care.
to expand:
There is no point being didactic on editorial guidance pages even if you REALLY REALLY think people REALLY REALLY need to do this. Because it doesn't work. It doesn't stop clueless editors, because they won't understand it. It doesn't stop malicious editors, because they don't care. It provides a new way for apparently insane robots to inappropriately misapply process without understanding why it's there. And it pisses off the good clueful editors who go "what, MORE policy?"
Now. The above bullet points are from the perspective of me, who hates this stuff. What's a phrasing that would get through to someone who thinks being didactic on editorial guideline pages is a necessary idea? This is the school of thought that removes all blog or Usenet references because they don't like them, then the apparently insane robots move in.
- d.