[WikiEN-l] CSD T1
wikilegal at inbox.org
Sat May 13 15:53:39 UTC 2006
On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > The point is, those of you claiming that this CSD is an edict from
> > above have so far provided no evidence that it actually is. In fact,
> > after looking further, someone on that page made the claim that Jimbo
> > has explicitly stated that it's *not* an edict from above.
> I don't think that's a correct statement. In the event that it is, I
> suggest that you examine finding of fact 2 in the Tony Sidaway
Just a few messages up I commented on this. 1) "Templates that are
divisive and inflammatory" is not equivalent to "Templates designed
for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical
convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues". In fact, I
believe the former is obviously a CSD, while the latter should not be.
However, I now see these two CSDs have been split. 2) Jimbo's
comment was " At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill
about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a
community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try
to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that
already exist." That seems to me to be a statement which explicitly
states he is *not* making an edict.
> This probably won't satisfy you because you don't recognise Jimbo's
> authority or the Arbitration Committee's authority. However that is
> not a problem for those of us who do.
Well, it's still important to know whether or not this *is* an edict,
even if the fact that it is is not necessarily conclusive.
More information about the WikiEN-l