[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism userbox

[George Herbert]

On 6/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:12:18 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem
> >for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using
> that
> >justification, of late.  Playing well with others is more important now.
>
> Up to a point, I'd say.  As far as I can tell Tony's beef with
> "process wonks" is that the slavish following of rules has come to
> replace building a great encyclopaedia as the primary goal.  He has no
> patience with people who look first at the rules and only second at
> whether a given thing is good for the encyclopaedia or not.  The
> decision hierarchy at present for many people seems to be community,
> guideline, policy, encyclopaedia - it should be the other way round.



Ok.  So apply your preferred order to the signatures refactoring.

Encyclopedia: not affected.  People's signatures are talk space / user space
/ admin space functions.
Policy: weak policy on signature contents.  Some that Tony zapped exceeded
policy recommendations; some were within.
Guideline: which one do you want to apply?   Assume good faith?  Be bold?
The vaguer parts of the signature Policy?
Community: Community subset gets upset.  Community subset RfC's him.

If this had been some sort of issue with users dropping crap in mainspace
articles, we wouldn't be here.  We're here because it was not an issue
affecting the Encyclopedia aspect of Wikipedia, where Tony exceeded the
written Policy,  With fuzzy Guideline applicability, and upset the
Community.

Even if Community is your last priority, it has to be some priority.  The
signatures issue largely doesn't apply to the other levels.


-- 
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com