On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@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@retro.com / gherbert@gmail.com