User:Arthur Rubin/UPP

Actually, never formally submitted as a policy poll, and would serve no purpose now. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Modified from Userbox policy poll

I'm proposing A, B, and G be passed by acclimation, and separate votes on C, D, E/a, E/b (which are contradictory), H (a very complex vote), K/a, L, M/a, M/b (which are contradictory), and M/c.

Please do not vote yet. Comments are welcome, but it should be moved to Wikipedia space before any voting occurs. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A
Foundational to Wikipedia is the neutral point of view. Jimbo has said that 'here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. Although many editors would prefer that expression of POV be discouraged on user pages, many others believe that bias is better declared. There being no consensus on the matter, there should be no prohibition; prohibition is, in any case, unenforceable. Users should be permitted relatively free expression on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance. They may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes). These should be limited only by the usual policies relevant to user pages, those regarding no personal attacks, civility, copyright, legal considerations, not bringing wikipedia into disrepute, no deliberate trolling, and the caveat that wikipedia is not a free webhost.


 * I see no possible dispute here. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk)

B
Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for political advocacy.


 * I see no possible dispute here, either &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk)

C
As such, the main template and category space should only be used to further the encyclopaedia.
 * Clarification :I'd abstain, so I'm separating this from B, but I'd expect it to pass. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk)

D
Furthermore, soliciting of votes or editor watch by affiliation is harmful to the project. Hence, POV and advocacy templates should never be transcluded, as that would provide an easily available list of members using that template.

Comment
How shall we define "POV and advocacy template"? It seems to me that even the venerable Babel boxes are in a sense POV and advocacy; does that mean they should never be transcluded (i.e. used as normal templates) either? Angr/ talk 11:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

a
As such, the server resources involved in transclusion should only be used to further the encyclopaedia. User templates should only exist in so far as they assist in that aim.

Comment
Again, how do we define "furthering the encyclopedia"? To return to the example of Babel boxes, I quite like having them on my user page, but I'm under no illusion that they further the encyclopedia in any way. Angr/ talk 11:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

b
However the server resources used in transclusion are so minimal that there should be no restriction on transclusions from User space or Wikipedia space to User space. (subject to A and D above).

G
Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression (subject to the caveats in A).


 * I can't see any objection to this

H
Userspace templates
 * A. Real language templates should be allowed.  (Example, English or French)
 * B. Geographic templates should be allowed.  (Example, United States or California.  I'd include time zones in here.)
 * C. Wiki-status should be allowed.  (Example, Admin.)
 * D. Wiki-grouping templates should be allowed.  (Example, Wikiproject Mathematics.)
 * E. Expertise templates should be allowed.
 * F. Skill templates should be allowed.
 * G. Editing interest templates should be allowed.  (Example, US politics)
 * H. POV templates should be allowed.  (Example, user is Republican.)
 * I. Advocacy templates should be allowed.  (Example, everyone should be a Republican.)
 * J. Attack templates should be allowed.  Just kidding, that's restricted by WP:NPA.

Comments: This is a royal pain for vote-counters, especially since we should have separate provisions for Template space templates, Wikipedia space copyable "templates", user space templates, and user space copyable "templates".

For example, my vote might be:
 * +++++++---/+++++++++-/+++++++---/+++++++++-, where + means support, 0 means abstain, - means oppose, if the categories do not further increase.

Clarification: My feeling is that the vote solicitation by POV would be discouraged by making H and I "templates" only as copyable pages. I have some doubt about whether deletionist or inclusionist fits under category D, category G, or category H, but there's always going to be problems.

a
All changes made under a previous version of this policy shall be reverted unless in violation of A.

L
Userboxes, and any user pages, in violation of A should be speedied or brought up for deletion under normal provisions.

M
Existing templates which become inappropriate under whatever policy we decide in Userbox Policy/H above shall be:

a
Summarily subst'd.

b
Kept around for no less than 4 weeks, to allow the user's time to substitute them or request they be substituted, before being deleted.

c
Kept in Userboxes as copyable.