Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll/Archive 2

Screw userbox debates
Another long, pointless discussion that revolves around advocacy and vanity, and has nothing to do with writing better articles. What a waste of energy. Perhaps I should start a discussion about removing User pages entirely - nah that would be more wasted effort. (I feel better now) Garglebutt / (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Watch this start a meta-discussion on the discussion. :p --AySz88 ^ -  ^  04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't believe in userpages but you have one. Interesting. Cynical 09:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I was naive when I started on Wikipedia so added some stuff to my user page but now I'm more cynical like you ;). I've tended to remove more and more as time goes by; most recently was a few innocuous userboxes. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You will probably be horrified to find out that a long thread on the mailing list was devoted to the exact topic of removing User pages entirely. (Don't worry, the vast majority of the thread was explanations of why that was not a good idea, but still - yes, we are wasting that much time on this, sigh.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
There seems to be a degree of doubt as to what this would mean in practice for userboxes. As one of the main authors of this policy proposal, let me expand on how I'd interpret its wording.


 * Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression. Means that almost all userboxes can be displayed on userpages. To be specific, you can display: political and belief userboxes. You can say you dislike George Bush, love the Spaghetti monster, and shop in Asda. You can declare your sexuality, nationality, sports allegiance, or furriness. You can even be 'polemical' (as long as it's not trollish). You can record your school, county and shoe size, and boast of your undying love of Michael Jackson, Jimbo, or strawberry jam. You can be an atheist, an anarchist, or an accountant - and proclaim it to the world. You can tell us which Bible verse, wiccan spell, or Spice Girl you prefer. All you can't do is breach  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. Which, in short, means; do what you want in your userspace, just don't be a dick. This is a very permissive userpage policy.


 * Templates, however, are only to be used for general things that provide direct benefit to creating an encyclopaedia. That means userboxes existing as templates should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded.. This is intended to allow boxes that say something useful about what you can do to help Wikipedia. Let me give some examples:
 * Language skills (Babel templates) are allowed - because they may be helpful in translating articles
 * Geographical interest - that's not 'hey I live here' or 'my ancestors came from there' or 'I'm proud to be a...' - but 'I've got an interest/knowledge in editing [Scottish] articles' (regardless of whether I'm an ex-pat, or a Frenchman living in there). (Of course, more personal descriptions can be in hard-coded boxes, just not in templates).
 * There can be a template to indicate those interested in editing 'sexuality issues', but not one to declare an editor's sexuality (although you can do that in a hard-coded box)
 * I can have a template saying that I'm interested in editing theology, but not one saying I believe this or that (but belief-boxes can again be hard-coded)
 * You can have a template saying you are knowledgeable about articles on a certain sport, but there will be no template user: Celtic F.C. (but you can create a box on your userpage).
 * A template should tell us what kind of articles the user likes to edit, but not indicate any hidden biases she might exhibit as she does so.
 * 'I am a physician' should probably not be a template (it speaks of the user rather than of the editing interest), but 'this user is interested in medical articles' could certainly be a template.
 * 'Valid wikigroupsing' could have templates (that's projects, CVU, Esparanza etc), but there would not be templates that divide wikipedians by political, religious, or wiki-beliefs (but these can still be hard-coded userboxes).
 * Wiki-tasking would allow 'user admin' 'user new page patrol' 'user welcome' templates etc.

OK that's my take on the wording - I hope it helps. --Doc ask?  14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One problem I have with that is that Category: Wikipedians by location (and its accompanying userboxes) is generally considered useful to the project Cynical 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * not bringing wikipedia into disrepute makes sense to me... but it could be subjective, depending on whose repute it really counts with in the final analysis, man...  I would submit that many of the very things you gave as examples DO and WILL bring wikipedia into "disrepute" where it really matters on that Day... 172.139.30.143


 * Good clarifications, thanks. So is a userbox (an actual template) showing that one is a metawikipedian in or out? In, I think? How about inclusionist? Out, I think... thanks for further clarification there. + +Lar: t/c 00:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification on this. It makes sense to me. Metamagician3000 10:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, this suggests that association is a bad thing, why not have a Userbox: namespace, so all and sundry can gather up common userboxes together. This builds consensus by making factions coherent. StrangerInParadise 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for clarification of proposal, for the benefit of the technically clueless
I'm a non-newbie (been here for about a year, recently given mop & bucket), and before today I didn't really understand the meaning of "transclusion". I'd been using templates for months, but wasn't entirely familiar with the term describing what I'd been doing, and so was slightly confused by the discussion of transcluding userboxes.

I admit that I'm not very technically minded, but I suspect that there are other Wikipedians who are similarly clueless about the MediaWiki side of things, and who (like me) might be a bit confused by some of the terminology in this proposal. After a bit of searching, I found Template namespace and the particularly helpful Transclusion costs and benefits, which enabled me to fully understand what was being proposed. I suggest that these two pages be linked to the proposal, for the benefit of Wikipedians like me who are happy to engage in both the encyclopedia project and the community supporting it without knowing too much about the mechanical underpinnings. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've linked the uses of the word transclusion to Glossary; hopefully that will help... JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User sub page transclusion amendment, version 2
I don't know if this will get any support either, but I'll throw it into the ring...

''As per current practice, users shall remain free to transclude a small number of pages from their own user space to other pages in their user space. Attempts to circumvent this proposal and retain a transcludable version of an otherwise unacceptable template by moving it to a user space page may be dealt with by deleting the template, after it has been subst'ed into any pages it is used in within the same user space.''

Let the objections begin... JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing, but it doesn't address what happens if someone transcludes something in someone else's userspace, and that someone else doesn't know that happened. (If you meant to disallow single userboxes in userpage subpages entirely, that's probably overkill.) --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't it. The idea is you can have something that isn't acceptable.  The wording has to state that other users are not allowed to use it as a template --T-rex 03:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How does this address the objections? It seems to make the policy more restrictive than as proposed, though I may be misunderstanding it. I eventually supported the policy on the basis that all it does it take userboxes out of template space, which means, I take it, that no one will be able to look up a list of (say) "vegemite-hating wikipedians" anymore. At the same time, I thought the policy was meant to ensure that no templates expressing personal beliefs would be deleted until all users were protected from the impact, and that we then be able to do what we like with our own userspace (within reason and the law). This latest proposal seems to go backwards on the last point. Then again, would you please explain it without jargon. What exactly does it actually allow or prevent that is not allowed or prevented by the policy as formulated? I just don't understand what it means for something to be "used as a template" but not in template space. It seems like a contradiction. Metamagician3000 09:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because people would be able to separate their userpages into multiple 'sections'. I've seen people do this, they have each section of their userpage as a separate subpage, and then include it with template calls,  etc. to make the source of their actual userpage more easily readable (especially when they customise it with HTML etc.) That's what this amendment would allow (the original proposal could [its unlikely, but then people thought it was unlikely that CSD T1 would be abused] have been interpreted as banning ANY non-subst'ed transclusion on userpages) Cynical 09:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Still makes it necessary for me to police transclusions of my user subpages to ensure that they aren't substed onto my own page. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 01:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, I see no necessity for the suggested amendment. Stick with what we have. I have concerns but Pathoschild's project will cover them. Let's keep it as simple as we can and tweak later to deal with any problems or abuses. Metamagician3000 09:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Point 2C
are not allowed to use other users subpages as templates, so you could use your own, but not somebody elses. This would allow them to stay, and remove all possible abuse of "what links here" --T-rex 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, Wikipedia is to broach no notion of right of assembly, then? What is this abuse you speak of? StrangerInParadise 23:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What started this whole userbox debate in the beginning was a single user, who was using the userbox grouping to try and rally wikipedians who he believed were anti-gay to vote for deletion on the article "Gay Culture in Iraq". Granted his attempt failed miserally, and people even complained about this user draging him into the subject.  It was then proposed that userbox should then no longer be allowed to group wikipedians, but it was then pointed out that someone could check "what links here to do the same thing".  This proposal is an attempt to eliminate these flaws with the previous userbox problem, yet to allow userboxes themselves to stay.  That said you might be interested to know that I have voted oppose on this due to its lack of clarity.  Mostly on the point that I mentioned above. --T-rex 00:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I join you in opposition, but not in wanting to frustrate the grouping of Wikipedians. Why is this a flaw?  I think it is a good thing to bring interested parties to bear quickly on issues. Knowing where people stand is a good first step.  This facilitates consensus, rather than the opposite.  Again, why is this a problem? Worse, why is this a problem so fundamental that it calls for changing the very topography of Wikipedia? StrangerInParadise 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on this one, but trying to reach a compromise with those who feel that this is too easilly abused --T-rex 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a time for compromise. This proposal is far more dangerous than the problems it seeks to correct. We should create a Userbox: space, and this proposal should be dropped.  The problem isn't that some article might receive a fatwa from some yahoo claiming to speak for a set of users bearing a userbox, the problem is the institutional weakness which might make such a force irresistible, for example an anti-Wikilawyering culture, poor debate process and a shaky understanding of the essence of NPOV.  Telling people they cannot declare themselves Christian believer or Unreconstructed Trotskyite or Extra-crunchy Hippie Freak does not reinforce the culture of NPOV. Showing how these people have an immediate common basis for dialog based on NPOV does. That is the true power of NPOV. StrangerInParadise 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no opposition to "the grouping of Wikipedians" - see the large number of WikiProjects. There is opposition to the grouping of Wikipedians for purposes other than improving the encyclopedia. This is a very important distinction. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, JesseW, that all actions should be judged in terms of improving the encyclopedia. I simply do not trust you— or anyone— to make that judgement for me on so broad a scale. StrangerInParadise 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification 2
This policy says that template space is only for wikipedia related html. I take this to mean that all userboxes not related to wikipedia will be deleted. I want to clarify this policy to say that more explicity with the lines: All template space userboxes that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted. Am I correct in this interpertation? If policy is anything it should be clear.--God of War 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The policy is perfectly clear. B. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for political advocacy. As such, the main template and category space and 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.
 * 2) You are wrong about deletion. All such userboxes can remain on userpages. Any templates should be subst onto userpages before deletion, indeed four weeks will be left to alow this to happen.
 * 3) Folk have gone on about the right to free expression, and the benefits of declaring POV on userpages, both of those are guarenteed under this policy - as are userboxes on userpages. --Doc ask?  21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Doc, in my word I said template space userboxes will be deleted. This is true even if userspace userboxes remain. Saying that they will remain for a month before being subst has the same end result of userboxes being deleted. My wording is correct.--God of War 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, but totaly unneccessary, and all the useful ones (liberaly interpreted) get to stay as templates as well. --Doc ask?  21:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * God of War, from reading the oppose votes, many people still seem to misunderstand and think that all POV userboxes are being deleted, so how about adding a second sentence in the line of "non-template space userboxes (regardless if they show a POV or not) will be unaffected" right after the "All template space userboxes that show a POV ..." sentence? I have a feeling people are reading the "All template space userboxes" comment and missing the important "template space" qualifier. It is possible that many people think userboxs are synonymous with templates, so clarifying the distinction in two separate sentences might help. Regards, MartinRe 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is neccessary. All Policy should be as explicit as possible. Unless something in my wording goes against what people have voted on than I will be re-adding it--God of War 21:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually not quite true inclusive of the things in the policy: things like joke templates aren't included in that statement, for example. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (This post was talking about the clarification added to the main page, "All template space userboxes that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time.") --AySz88 ^ -  ^  22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the policy is fine as is the policy provides the flexibility to allow useful userboxes to be retained as templates, policy can never cover every "if and but" situation without becoming a nonsense in itself. Your "clarification" would alter the meaning of the policy as far as I am concerned and cannot be added at this stage. --pgk( talk ) 21:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I specifically said that the clarification section adds nothing new. It just helps users that are confused by all the obtuse wording and are wondering what the policy means to them. I can add another line to the clarification section to address your concern.--God of War 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To me your "clarification" doesn't clarify but changes the meaning, I don't perceive the policy as is to be obtusely worded so I don't think any addition I can suggest would help or be required. --pgk( talk ) 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the whole idea behind this proposal was to eliminate the inclution of tanscluded userboxes (which is ok, as long as you can still put whatever you want on your user page)--T-rex 01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pgk here, it seems pretty straight forward. In any case it’s not an accurate representation of the policy, for example the clarification only mentions template space userboxes and says nothing about this section:


 * “Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This would be subject to the caveats of principles A and B.”


 * So it really doesn’t belong, or it needs to be more accurate. I don’t think it’s needed, editors should be reading the full policy and not rely on a clarification that’s not accurate. Rx StrangeLove 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Throwing a million editors into a communal space to synthesize the whole of human knowledge, and expecting them to forego all politics and association in doing so is beyond naive. You're new to our planet, aren't you? StrangerInParadise 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What does this solve?
As I said in my Oppose vote (number 34), People will still be free to say "I'm a Christian" on their user page anyway, so what's wrong with a little template for it? Gerard Foley 01:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification request
Is Template:Userbox, itself supposed to be deleted? Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No Template:Userbox has always been only to be used as a guide, it will be kept for the reason in the future (i think) --T-rex 23:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that the userbox'd version (if there is one) of a deleted userbox be replaced in instead of the raw HTML? --AySz88 ^ -  ^  23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We're already making efforts to do this; see User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes#HTML to conversion. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets Close This Vote
I stand by my oppose vote, but 77% is pretty overwhelming. Lets just approve this and move on --T-rex 05:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some users have requested the vote stay open for at least 2 weeks, but personally, I agree with you - It's stayed at approx. 70%-80% support for nearly the full time it's been open and I don't think 100 more wikipedians are going to show up and vote "oppose" in the next week and a half. I have no objection to closing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose we close it at 20:05 tomorrow; that'll be a full week of vote, which I think is sufficient with the huge amount of participation we've recieved (148 votes!). // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 07:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, doesn't new policy require more than that of an RfA? (75-80% for an RfA) --AySz88 ^ -  ^  13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a two week period would be fairer given the impact this policy will have. And as with AySz88, we need to determine what exactly constitutes a "passing vote" (I suggest looking at past straw polls in previous proposals, particularly "close" polls). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This misconceived disaster is nowhere near the threshhold for consensus. There are a significant number who will wonder why-the-hell their userboxes have been replaced by red links, and be told, oh the community has decided against, didn't you vote in our obscure little poll? StrangerInParadise 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been linked from the Recent Changes page for at least a few days. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not everyone uses Recent Changes for RC patrol (I only use the IRC channel) or does RC patrol at all; maybe watchlists or something would work better. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why close? This shows enough opposition, despite the debate on the vote page, to show there is no consensus. Dominick (TALK) 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, why hurry? We may as well get this right. Ian13/talk 18:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The vote is looking closer than it did. I think it's best to hang on for awhile and see how it looks after at least a few more days. Metamagician3000 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright. How about March 08 20:05, making it a full fortnight? // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording Change Proposal
Per TreyHarris's comments, I am suggesting that the sentence:
 * "Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded."

be changed to:
 * "Advocacy or declarations of bias, rather than declarations of skill or interest, are specifically excluded."

I intend this to be nothing more than a clarification and rewording, and hope it is viewed in that light. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, makes it better (though, alone, isn't enough to change my overall vote). --AySz88 ^ -  ^  21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I would vote yes on the overall proposal if this change were made. --TreyHarris 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. The proposed wording is more accurate. --Yannick 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support -- yeah, well spotted -- Gurch 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lukewarm support - I honestly can't see any difference, and it's not the sort of thing that will get to change my overall vote. It seems to me that "advocacy" is very broad anyway. But if this is going change of wording is going to make some people happier without changing the interpretation that Doc offers below, then by all means make it. Metamagician3000 10:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can sommone clarify what difference this would make, and what 'grey areas' it would clarify? Perhaps cite an example or two? --Doc ask?  11:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See vote #3 by TreyHarris at Userbox_policy_poll. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - prevents flamewars over interpretation/abuse by over-zealous people on both sides as we have had with T1 Cynical 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support (co-proposer), as that's exactly the meaning that was intended. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 14:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose The wording change is a waste of time, when we should gutting this proposal altogether. The very notion of frustrating one's sense of community and association by blinding one to the diversity with which he is surrounded is misguided at best, fascist at worst.  It is as if we are to all don some NPOV burka so as to conform to someone else's expectations of neutrality (and homogeneity).  If I am a fervent believer in something, it would be equally desireable to know I am on the fringe, or surrounded by tens of thousands of my fellow zealots.  Consider: we edit what we are interested in.  To take your concerns to a logical extreme, we should edit only articles assigned to us at random, as if pulled from a jury pool and by voire dire excluded from any we might have opinions on.  This is not the way to avoid flamewars. Even if it were, the result is worse than flamewars. Make a Userbox: namespace, and be done with it! StrangerInParadise 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss this rather than vote on it. I could support this if we make the ambiguities inherent in the new wording less so. Advocacy or declarations of bias, rather than declarations of skill or interest, are specifically excluded. What do we mean by interest? If we clarify this to be 'editing interest'. But we don't want templates on irrelevant personal interests, or interests too specific to be useful. (Those are of course fine if hard coded.) Again 'skill' should be skills relevant to wikipedia editing 'e.g. this user can speak language x, programm a bot etc. We don't want irrelevant personal skills 'I can play football' or 'I'm rather good at martial arts'. You can have an editing interest template for those - but what's revevant is not your skill but your knowledge of the subject. If we change the wording here, let us make it clear that this is to be interpreted within the general ethos of 'utility to the encyclopedia' (everything else should be hard-coded). I'll support the change if it reads something like:


 * Advocacy or declarations of bias (rather than declarations of relevant skill or editing interest) are specifically excluded.


 * --Doc ask?  15:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I like Doc's formulation. --  Donald Albury (Dalbury) ( Talk )  18:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Any of the proposed wordings are fine with me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was told on #wikipedia a bit ago that the definition of "POV" in Glossary has force of policy. (Since the glossary page does not have a policy banner, I was not aware of this fact.) The definition reads, '"Originally referred to each of many perspectives on an issue which may need to be considered and balanced in an encyclopedic article. Today, more often used as an insulting synonym for "bias", as in "That reply was POV, not neutral."'  So does the problem actually exist?  The sentence of the proposal I objected to reads "bias" already, apparently—I just didn't know I was supposed to read it that way.  (Something really needs to be done to mark the glossary as policy, by the way, I barely even glanced at it before today.  I think it's a bad thing to have policy that not everybody even knows is policy.) --TreyHarris 10:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Further comments User:Arthur Rubin
22:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be consistent about the objections to vote stuffing, the corresponding categories (such as Category:Jewish Wikipedians corresponding to Template:User Jew) should also be deleted. As this is not in the present proposal, that justification is hypocritical, and should be considered void.  It is there.  Never mind.
 * I have no objection to reducing the load on the servers -- but it has been stated that the difference in load between subst'ing the userboxen or transcluding them is very small. If correct, that justification would be void.  Even if not, if a user wants a userbox, and has difficulty finding one to his liking, that time is directly taken from the time he would have been editing.  See my change to a conditional abstention on the talk page.
 * Therefore, if this proposal, or anything like it becomes policy, the value of the project will be reduced unless all speedily deleted userboxes are undeleted and moved into userspace -- whether under User:Boxes or User:trusted person/Boxes  makes little difference -- and there is a pointer to the unofficial userboxen on the official userbox page.  Implementation 1-4 should be made mandatory on the part of the person deleting the userboxen, and all speedily deleted userboxen which are not clearly divisive should be moved to that area.  (If this is made a formal part of the policy, I would change my vote from Oppose to Abstain.)
 * As for not aiding the editing of the encyclopedia -- part of the Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug related to whether RJII was editing from a libertarian POV. The question of whether he considered himself a libertarian would be relevant to determining that, which would help the project as a whole.
 * Strikeout 's deleted and italic text added. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Numbering Format
Can someone fix the numbering in the oppose section? It's seems to have gotten messed up.--God Ω War 19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This does not seem to accomplish what most people voting support believe it does.
As far as userboxes go atleast

With the combination of policy line 1 "Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression (subject to the caveats in A)." and the line in Principle A "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)." this gives people the right to make any userboxes they wish as long as it is in their userspace. POV userboxes will not go away, they will just be moved. For example if I wanted to make a "I am Pro-Choice" userbox that can be used to keep track of other pro-choice people i'd upload a small image either public domain or that I created with a pro-choice symbolism. I'd then create a userbox on my user page using the userbox template with the id being that image. Then if anyone else wants that userbox they just need to copy the userbox code off of my userpage. Now if I wanted to use my pro-choice userbox to find support for a vote all i'd have to do is click on the image and hit "what links here".

What this does is give users the right to make any userbox they want on their user page(Pedophile userboxes would be ok) without regulation (As long as they don't break other rules like WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL). And it clears the userboxes out of the template namespace. Seraphim 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It only makes it harder for people to put userboxes on their page. You're not allowed a template but you are allowed to write the code. I would consider templates beginning with "User " to be part of user space, as you can't use them on articles. Gerard Foley 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not really hard. They just have to copy paste a longer, messier template. The generic userbox template is not being removed. It reminds me of the DeCSS case. The policy is just removing the ability to have specific userbox templates made, but it's leaving in the ability to duplicate everything the specific userbox templates do.


 * Instead of it would now be {{{{subst:userbox |id=Image:Qubbat-esSakhrah.jpg |info=This user is a Muslim.  |info-c=black |info-s=8 |border-c=#aaffaa |border-s=2}} (I think that's correct haven't actually used the template:userbox before) and all users have to do to see who has that tag on their page is click on the picture. Nothing changes except now userboxes that are deleted {{user christian}} will show up again and will be protected under this policy.  Seraphim  23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, this seems to me a good example of something that would not be allowed under the proposal, under #3. I don't see how it can be reasonably construed that a  (or any other such grouping, such as  or  ) is not categorizing by POV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I realized that after I posted it. I just picked a random userbox obviously I didn't pick a good one. Pretend I used {{user admin}} . Same point no category involvement  Seraphim  00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, if you use the 'what links here' option on the Qubbat-esSakhrah.jpg image, it does not show any pages. Are you sure that in this formatt such an image can be used in a similar way to a category? David D. (Talk) 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I just learned something. You cannot use 'What links here' for pictures instead you go to Image:Qubbat-esSakhrah.jpg. That is also true for you freemason example that you mentioned below, Image:Square_compasses.png.  But, point taken, it is a good example that proves your new idea for categories will work well. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It only makes it harder for people to put userboxes on their page. You're not allowed a template but you are allowed to write the code. I would consider templates beginning with "User " to be part of user space, as you can't use them on articles. Gerard Foley 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The goal of clearing the template space is not a bad one. The solution proposed is a cultural disaster where a technically elegant and simple solution would have avoided all this. MediaWiki is a collaborative tool. Wikipedia is a project with a million contributors. The idea that the technology should not allow for ease of association and identity is at least naive and at worst a tragically missed opportunity.  People are so hung-up on vote stacking and the excesses of passionate advocates, they are willing to sterilize the culture to prevent it.


 * StrangerInParadise 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You just made my point for me that people don't understand completly what this does :). This does nothing to stop votestacking or people proudly displaying their POV through userboxes. Infact it protects the user's right to do so and protects the users right to any userbox that does not fall under WP:CIVIL WP:NPA copyright and a few others. A ton of the deleted userboxes will be coming back if this passes.  Seraphim  23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

{{User:Hexagon1/freedom}}
 * You're mistaken. I should be able to add a userbox, and at the same time add my name to a list, and explore that list to see who else is on it.  Also, I'd like to tag talk statement easily, like this.  Today I can (barely, having fought off a few rogue admins), after this passes, I won't.  Besides, your notion that, it's the same, you just have to paste the raw code, how easy! is repugnant on so many levels.


 * StrangerInParadise 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah but that's where you're wrong :) it will still be possible to do exactly what your explaining. If the userbox has an image in it just click on that image, then go to "what links here".  You will get a list of all the user pages with that image on it, and therefore it's a list of people displaying that userbox on their userpage. Plus it is just as easy to copy paste the code, it's just messier.  Seraphim  23:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm-- a given image may be used in a great many places besides a userbox, or in multiple userboxes. Even those on a User: page cannot be guaranteed to be in a box, expressing the same POV. This is nowhere near as reliable as a category for the purpose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If the image is specific enough it won't be too big of a problem. Obviously categories are more reliable, but it's pretty easy to glance at the page to see where the image is (since you go to their user page where the image is displayed) before you click over to the talk page. This does very very little to prevent vote stacking.  Seraphim  00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a good example: this is an image of the square and compass. There is currently no category for freemason users, however if you go to the image page and click on "what links here" every single "User: Username" link brings you to a page of a member that is a freemason. Consider it a proof of concept :) Seraphim  00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than using "what links here" you would use Image:Square_compasses.png. Nevertheless your point is not changed. David D. (Talk) 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah my bad. I checked my example but forgot on images you just scroll down :p Seraphim  00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ALso every single thing stated in that user freedom tag is supported and protected by this proposal. POV and religious userboxes will not only be allowed, they will be protected. Seraphim  23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't generalise that people who vote against you don't understand why, it can be seen as condescending. This policy is trying to make the split between User and Non-user space complete. User space is allowed (within reason) to be POV, but anything in wikipedia space should be NPOV and for the benefit of the encypclopedia. Having POV templates (in wiki space, using encypclopedia resources) - even if they are designed only to be used in user space - is an anomoly, which this policy is trying to fix. MartinRe 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not generalising at all. Go read the support votes. I'll quote some of them.  "I'm all for "I belong to this group, so I know a thing or two about it" boxes, not for "I belong to this group, so here I am, pushing POV" boxes" "If userboxes are not allowed to advocate a position, merely declare an interest in a topic, this limits that capability drastically, and reduces it to where it can probably be managed via normal, unofficial processes." "This policy may not be perfect, but if it isn't, it can be tweaked later. All of the advocacy, POV, and generally frivolous userboxes make user pages look like MySpace or LiveJournal sometimes" also from the responses on this page.  It seems to me that some people (i'll agree I shouldn't have said most) believe that this policy will prevent votestacking through userboxes and POV userboxes. Both of which this does not do at all.  Also moving things to userspace from template space is just moving it, the same amount of resources are being used, especially when everyone is going to start using template:userbox to build off of.  Seraphim  00:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I consider templates beginning with "User " to be part of userspace to begin with. Gerard Foley 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read the oppose votes, there is similar confusion among some of the voters, thinking that getting rid of template based userboxes is the same as all userboxes, but that does not mean that "most people" voting against don't understand. Also, moving from template to userspace should reduce resource used, as userpace template userboxes will be subst'd via Implementation 1.2. Yes, it is possible, everyone will updated their "subst'd user ABC" to a Userbox (ABC image/text), but personally I think that will only happen in a small amount of cases. If it happens, as you think it will, I'm sure it will be looked at, but this policy is looking at the situation *now*, not one that might be in future. (PS I believe treating templates begining with User as userspace (even if they really are template space) was tried and failed, which is why we're in this situation. MartinRe 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Subst'ing to the raw HTML instead of a userbox is vandalism. It may be justified in some cases, but it's still vandalism, even if policy.  User:Arthur Rubin 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thinking of this proposal as a techinical optimization is nonsense. StrangerInParadise 00:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support
Check out my "Conditional Support" entry on the main page. I'm curious to see what you all think. If my proposed comprehensive listing were added, I think it would bring more opposition into support of the new policy. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think a new "conditional support" section is a good idea, because the poll is on how the policy is worded right now, I doubt policy is going to be changed mid-poll. A lot of the oppose and abstain neutral votes also have conditions with which they would support.  I would suggest moving your section to one of the three existing sections, for clarity.  Right now, it appears to me that those who want amendments after the current proposal is enacted are voting support, while those who want them before it is enacted are voting oppose or abstain neutral. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  20:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (fixed --AySz88 ^  -  ^  00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to list separately, but I have already asked a few folks (including Jimbo) to look for it as it is. I would appreciate your indulgence. BTW, my idea of "conditional support" is that it is not support if the condition isn't met.  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you supporting this anti-userbox nonsense at all? It is bad for all concerned. StrangerInParadise 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think the main proposal + my proposal would leave us practically where we are today, minus only two things: (1) some userboxes not being "template-ized", though they would be centrally listed (per my proposal) and ALL userboxes would be allowed to be on userpages, and (2) the bulk of the userbox wars (and hopefully all the grief) would be gone.  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, why do you think a userbox that creates a list of adherents is a bad thing? Are any of these bad things prevented by forcing people to organize off-site and bus the votes in? StrangerInParadise 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think this proposal is the way to do it, but there's no sense in making it easier to votestack than it is right now. It's probably extremely difficult to get people already established at Wikipedia to then congregate off-site and form an off-site votestacking or POV-pushing bloc - that's basically a cabal.  But there is no cabal - that is, in the same way it's near-impossible for "the opponents" to form a cabal, it is equally near-impossible for you to form a cabal.
 * Given the difficulty in off-site blocs, one of the more obvious ways to votestack would to bring lots of real-life or off-site friends to Wikipedia - but it's obvious to admins too, and the "meatpuppet" "votes" are not really counted, with a box at the top explaining that _fD (or whatever) is not a vote but a discussion. However, there have been quite a few examples of people attempting to votestack or POV-push via the userboxes.  Some people are trying to make sure userboxes can't be a vector for votestacking/POV-pushing, and, as the reasoning goes, if the userbox What-Links-Here hole is patched, such meatpuppetry or votestacking or cabalism or whatever from inside Wikipedia will drop significantly, and prevent occurances of the bad things.  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have absolutely NO problem with having a "userbox that creates a list of adherents" and do not believe it's "a bad thing". In fact, I have defended that very thing in some of these endless defenses of userboxes. I personally have no stake in vote-stacking, especially given that rogue admins don't really care what the vote is, and typically seem to get their way ... at least until cooler (and more freedom-attuned) heads prevail. My only reason for my conditional support (dependent on acceptance of my comprehensive listing proposal) is because it would probably be the best outcome possible, given that deletionist admins do not seem willing to follow consensus and let up, and they are getting on board with this policy generally, and if we can get the comprehensive listing, it wouldn't be so bad. I am personally very tired of these endless debates, and want to stop being distracted from creating the encyclopedia. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"If Jimbo is in agreement"
From the policy poll: "If Jimbo is in agreement, WP:CSD T1 (at least for userbox templates) might be replaced with userbox templates that obviously do not conform to the agreed userbox policy." I would like to know why do we need Jimbo's agreement, if the poll passes. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because if he didn't agree, the poll is worth nothing. Although Jimbo is known to almost always listens if the community polls something, he by no means has to. Since some people have interpreted statements by Jimbo to basically outlaw certain userboxes, stating that he would agree with this proposed policy (which is much more lenient than that) makes sense. -- grm_wnr Esc  18:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has to listen to what the community wants, unless he has plans to write the encyclopedia by himself! Gerard Foley 19:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That depends on what you mean by "has". It certainly wouldn't be wise to bring up the community up in arms, but he has no obligation not to do so. -- grm_wnr Esc  19:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Jimbo and his work a lot (otherwise why would I be here?), but I think that one of the basic ideas of an open encyclopedia is that the community has its obligative word. Otherwise it's just an "enlightened dictatorship". At the Wikipedia of my language, every policy change has to pass with 65% (every user with more than 1 month experience and 100 edits can vote) and then it's obligative. If it doesn't pass, it's obligative not to change anything, so the bureaucrat doesn't have any word more than the average user. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Theory and practice differ. In practice, you're right, but here's the theory: Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation board touch community decisions even less in other Wikimedia projects. But be aware that Jimbo and the Board (wow, I'll start a band with this name one day) can and will override the community in other language Wikipedias if they should deem it necessary. What we have here is a dictatorship (sometimes bordering on theocracy ;) ), even though it is very enlightened - But look at WP:OFFICE, try to vote it away, and see what happens. That does not mean it is remotely likely that Jimbo would go against a direct poll, but it is theoretically possible. Also, be aware that a certain percentage will probably share Jimbo's view, even if it does not meet the "consensus" threshold, whatever that one might be at the moment. You might want to read the discussions prior to the last ArbCom elections, where these points were pondered ad nauseam. -- grm_wnr  Esc  19:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I don't care that much to act against it, I was just expressing my opinion. So far what Jimbo has done seems to be fair (although I'd have liked to see a vote regarding not allowing anonymous users to open a new article), and if it stays that way I have no problem with the current system. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical Solution
This poll looks like it is going nowhere so I have proposed a technical solution to the userbox debates. This should make everyone on both sides of the debate happy. Please look here Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes--God Ω War 21:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Results, so far
Wiki e Zach|  talk  03:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A technical proposal which would make sense
Usage examples,
 *  , puts box on user page
 *  , puts quoted source on page
 *  , displays box on any talk page, without counting magic, for reference
 *  Userbox:My userbox , link to userbox page
 *  Userbox talk:My userbox , link to userbox talk page
 *  Userbox members:My userbox , which would show an index page of unique (no duplicate) user names which bear the user box, like the current use of category pages.

StrangerInParadise 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not a simple technical solution, to be honest; you're talking about introducing the concept of a userbox to the software. MediaWiki doesn't know what a userbox is. Sounds like a waste of time to code, to me, and it's not as clearly thought out as you might like. Rob Church (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So what does this proposal say about lists of userboxes?
Rereading the discussion, there seem at least three readings of what this policy says about a list of userboxes, kept so that users who want them can copy and paste into their own userspace:
 * Fine, this policy permits this with no problem.
 * This policy permits this as long as the subpages, with the actual userbox texts, are in user space.
 * This policy forbids any such list, anywhere.

We really should decide on one of these – and put it explicitly into the proposal – before it becomes policy; or we will see Userbox War II immediately upon its adoption, since some people are enforcing their own version of this before  its adoption. Septentrionalis 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We should decide about this. We should not amend this proposal to do so.  I agree that this is an issue that will need to be decided, but this proposal is not the place to do it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not? I'm not currently bothered about it enough to change my reluctant support vote, but these practical issues are important and I thought the idea was to see if consensus is possible. A good answer might be to say that such a policy does not determine what happens unofficially in user space, so it keeps silent on that (which would mean the second on the list would apply in practice, but that does not need to be stated officially in the policy). If that is the answer, then there's no need for any further issue to be decided later on and no one needs to decide their vote based on fears or desires about what might happen next. Metamagician3000 00:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because lots of people have already voted; because it is a seperate point than whether pages in the Template space should be used for purposes unrelated to the encyclopedia; because it is a seperate point than if and when templates containing only the code for one userbox should be deleted, and what should happen regarding uses of them before that - all of these reasons. My hope (somewhat dashed, admittedly) was that the acceptance of this proposal could help to calm and clarify the userbox debate, and let us discuss the remaining issues in a manner more calm and less inflamed by apparently arbitrary deletions and cries of censorship. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (minor wording changes -- 03:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
 * You may be right. I'm finding it difficult to get clear on this. I'm sure I've contradicted myself more than once on this page. :) Metamagician3000 12:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of those aren't "seperate points" on this proposal, apparently, because people not so familiar with how it was created might not understand what the compromise even is. Maybe we can make them seperate points and do straw polls on them individually to see how people stand (I've started trying to pick out the points at my sandbox), and then try to mesh everything into a better compromise - but that'll take weeks or months, and people seem tired of it already; I'm not sure how much time we have. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleting divisive images
Images that are solely used for divisive user boxes should get speedy deleted: Wikipedia is no free web space. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote dynamics projection
You heard it here first (or not): with six days to go, the non-admin vote is rolling in, and the margin will slip to less than 60% in favor. StrangerInParadise 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems that you were right about that one. Very close to falling below 60 now.--God Ω War 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A little vote-stacking effort never hurts either . Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Reflections
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to organise opposition to the policy by asking people who might not be aware of it, and are thought likely to be against it, to come and vote. Accusing people of vote stacking, or whatever, doesn't help the debate; it just raises emotions. Vote stacking implies something corrupt - like getting friends to sign up as wikipedia members just so they can vote, creating sock puppets to manipulate the voting, or offering kickbacks for voting. Just trying to organise some opposition is not vote stacking. I'm sure there has been some organising of support for the policy as well - though probably through networks of people who know each other. That is also legitimate; there's nothing corrupt about it.

I do think this is a pretty good policy in all the circumstances. The trouble is that some admins evidently jumped the gun and started deleting relatively innocuous userboxes before the community could respond to Jimbo's words through a consultative process. That was an unwise way to deal with an issue of symbolic importance. As a result, a lot of users are evidently confused and upset (as I was a couple of weeks ago). I wish the whole thing had been done consultatively with a vote to ratify this as a compromise after a lot of discussion (maybe taking some weeks) and no pre-emptive action. I'm sure it would have had overwhelming support in those circumstances.

IMHO it's just not tenable to allow template space to be used forever the way it has been in the past - Jimbo is right about that - but there has to be a transition period, adequate protection of users who still want easy ways to express their beliefs in their own user space, and a moratorium (while we all digest what is needed) on deleting boxes merely because they express political or religious beliefs. This policy does all of that about as well as possible. However reluctant people are to abandon the old situation, I think something like this policy is necessary.

I suggest that people who are upset, and want to express it by voting against the policy, think about whether the old situation was really tenable. It seems to me that it wasn't, given that having these things as templates really does give an odd impression to newcomers and the public, and besides Jimbo's views, which he is entitled to since he's putting such resources into this, will ultimately have to be deferred to in some way. If you can accept that the old situation is not tenable long-term, try to consider this policy on its merits - i.e. separate from the premature actions taken to delete templates in advance of the process of working out a policy. If you agree that the policy itself is quite good, you can support it while expressing your reluctance or regret that it is needed, and/or you can support it while also using other forums here to oppose continuing attempts by some people to jump the gun. E.g. you can vote to reinstate deleted templates pending this policy getting wide agreement.

Conversely, if this vote fails, I ask people who want to stop the kinds of userboxes concerned to accept the result for now and look at any alternative proposals on their merits. Maybe someone could propose a rejigged policy like this in a couple of months, during which people are not being antagonised by premature attempts to delete userbox templates. It's more important to get this right than to prove a point, win a victory, or make a painful (if needed) change quickly.

Just my two cents. :) Metamagician3000 23:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Two issues confused
There are two problems discussed here, which are confused,
 * the idea that the namespaces Category and Template, along with Main and Help, should be completely NPOV
 * the idea that the modes of speech with POV Userboxen and Lists of Wikipedians are inherently unacceptable

I support the first and oppose the second with equal vehemence.

Here is why the first problem is a problem: in principle, one should be able to lift Main, Category and Template and get an NPOV encyclopedia out of it. This is not the case today. My technical solution is simple, and would completely satisfy the first problem. Migration could happen in weeks, and the culture would be much stronger for it.

This is what is so tragic about this Userboxenkampf: instead of implementing a clear technical solution which would satisfy the first, we squabble about the second, releasing all the ignorant partisan POV the proposal claims to fix. So that we are clear: when we have admins trying to parse the degree of POV on the templates and userlists we create for use outside of articles, this is their POV intruding on our editorial freedom. It is not their job to decide how Wikipedians choose to align with one another, or otherwise identify themselves. It is perhaps the most anti-intellectual thing I have seen at Wikipedia— official censorship and book-burning, what ought to have been their first clue— and yet it always comes with the pretense of improving the encyclopedia.

Many of the proponents of this measure cry vote-stacking, yet think nothing of running to a channel packed full of admins to come gang up on some measure they do not like. In a collaborative effort involving over a million people, we need more tools to communicate, not less. Less than two hundred have voted this far on this measure, with a very high percentage of admins in attendance. How does this translate into community consensus? Many of the admins supporting this measure do not oppose vote stacking, they oppose breaking their monopoly on vote-stacking.

StrangerInParadise 22:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any deliberate effort by admins (who are far from a homogenous group) to "stack" the vote one way or the other. I am aware of a user going round spamming talk pages with a user-space template in an effort to garner opposition votes. Have you no decency, at last? Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * StrangerInParadise: Please don't solicit people to vote oppose. It illustrates the problem, actually: giving people your spin on things and before they've seen the original proposal will, of course, bias them against the proposal before they've seen it.  There's now a number oppose votes from those who apparently don't understand what the proposal is (or haven't expressed themselves clearly).  Such votes don't help with moving towards consensus and an agreeable compromise and their non-applicable reasons for opposing don't give any idea of what kind of compromise they would rather have.
 * As for the rest of your post: There are actually many precedents for Templates being used for non-encyclopedia things, such as proposed, style, and many others for the Wikipedia namespace, and userpage and Pic of the day in User namespace. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  03:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The stacking is implicit. I explain further at WP:AN/I. Decency? I lay out a clear case of vandalism, and your only concern is that I would criticise the perpetrator, how indecently biased is that? StrangerInParadise 08:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)