2829:
currently userboxes on a broad range of stances, and each of them has significant numbers of users. So, if the dispute was, say, between
Catholics and Atheists, and a single Catholic user called in others found via userboxes, what prevents the Atheists from doing the same, for example? Additionally, there is a big cost to this in terms of freedom of expression. Wikipedian user pages should not be censored against this type of material, particularly since people have been allowed to write personal points of view on their user pages since Knowledge (XXG) began in 2001. For that reason, I believe that advocacy through userboxes is not a bad thing at all; in fact, it can help make the Knowledge (XXG) community much more vibrant. Not to mention the many social reasons why userboxes are important - they enable Knowledge (XXG) users to know each other better and, more importantly, they enable users to check each other for NPOV problems. For example, if I'm having a dispute or discussion about an article with another user, and that user has userboxes which indicate political and religious POV, I know where that user's stance is coming from, and I can therefore argue with him in a much more efficient way, thus resolving the dispute much faster. Understanding and knowing other users during a dispute is, in my opinion, the best tool to lead to efficient resolution, without descending into alienation and mutual revert wars and insults.
3896:
However, do you realise that that turns
Knowledge (XXG) into a police state? Seriously, it is a significant breach to user liberties to say "you're not allowed to tell like-minded people of a vote going on". From the point we do that, we'll have the equivalent of a thought police monitoring Wikipedian users. That's simply unacceptable. Knowledge (XXG) grew on this notion of freedom, both freedom to use, to edit and freedom in general. Knowledge (XXG) has and is at the moment a free community and a 💕, and this has enabled it to grow substantially. The moment you try to impose bans on certain activities, the more disgruntled the community will be and the more the project will suffer. Not to mention that there will be a growing dislike between admins and other users, leading to the creation of a "ruling class" in a system that is by definition quite absent of hierarchy. And, the more restrictions you impose on the community, the more it will not be able to meet the goal of building an encyclopedia but will be forced to learn all the new rules, consider whether the action they are doing is "legal" and then argue with admins if they believe they were treated incorrectly. It all amounts to a huge level of bureaucracy.
2874:. NEUTRAL, not paired opposing.... That said I think there is an analogy with gun control here, those advocating userbox prohibition may not like this analogy, sorry. I oppose gun control for the reason that I don't think it works, and because it's going after the tool, not the tool user. Userboxes don't cause vote stacking. Users do. Getting rid of userboxes won't stop votestacking. It may make it marginally harder but it won't stop it. If we want to totally stop vote stacking without going after the people doing it, we have to ban every tool that can be used to do it. No email links, no categories, no searchable text on user pages, no posting what your IM handle is on your user page, etc etc. I think the right thing to do is to maybe make it a little harder to stack (mild: disallow automatic categorisation, stronger: require subst for all boxes so that even what links here can't find usages), not to ban expression of POV on user pages. If user boxes are banned completely I am going to still list my affiliations and beliefs on my page, by hand I guess, until and unless
3797:
well go around finding all the people with Java boxes and rally them to fight back. Ditto
Advogado... I work for a company that gets 250,000 USD or more for some of its licenses... couldn't Avogado advocates possibly engage in POV pushing against my employer (hypothetically). The point here is that any way to find users that claim something about themselves is possibly a way to enable POV-push-rallying. I am willing to see restrictions on boxes that incite hate speech but not on boxes in general. WP is not a free speech zone but if you are going to say Avogado is an OK affiliation but FSMism is not an OK affiliation to advertise, I'll fall back on the what the US supreme court said, the line ought to be where it's hate speech we are talking about. Else your unfree speech maybe is better than mine? Again, I think this is trying to address the tool, not the tool user, and addressing the tool this way fails to
1378:
one that stated: "This user is a paedophile and proud of it" or "This user hates all non-caucasians". PC-fascism (that's right, the one does not exclude the other) is seriously uncool. Let's not surrender to it! The 'pedia wants to be free... What's the difference between stating your views on the universe on your userpage in plain text and stating them in a userbox?! That like-minded people can find each other easier with userboxes and gang up on users or groups of users that they're opposed to, regarding one or more issues? That's just totally absurd. Like-minded people find each other all the time anyways. All you have to do is check out who's editing what you also edit, and somewhere in there there'll be someone you sympathize with. So let's not try to stop a river with our bare hands, to quote a Taoist saying... Kind regards, --
1084:
that having little decorative boxes on our userpages keep us from writing an encyclopedia, d) think that liberal
Wikipedians and conservative Wikipedians necessarily must hate each other, and e) dislike it when userboxes or cats are used to inform editors of a discussion going on (a good example is this discussion, which I and other editors find out about by being contacted through the cats in question). It appears that the only inherently negative use for them is to gang up to win edit wars on articles, something we already have policies to regulate (and not a good reason to delete the boxes or cats, since most good things can be misused, eg "let's make computers illegal since they can be used to send out viruses").
2239:
already have been. My _only_ point is that the proponents of userboxes are choosing where to apply certain policies and guidelines. It seems to me that if I did the same I could "choose" to ignore half the policies of WP; if enough did this, it would destroy the system. The policies are in place for a reason. Editors are creating userboxes with copyrighted images, saying Fair Use extends to userboxes, while they also violate NPOV, which they say doesn't extend to user pages (Fair Use, in my, explicitly excludes user pages, while the wording of NPOV seems more ambiguous). You can't be allowed to pick and choose your guidelines.
712:. In the first case, if you make changes to an article, and another editor notices that they don't quite read right, he can check your user page and see that problem wordings are probably just grammatical errors. In the second case, it does allow someone to search for a translator. Any claims that I speak less-than-fluent non-English languages are irrelevant, and one should take as a given that an editor is fluent in English unless he signifies otherwise. This same in-kind principle applies to non-English Wikipedias. (However, I am far from convinced that all unencyclopediatic userboxes should be banned.) —
111:
arrived at for a particular facet) for the various underlying fundamental questions around userboxes. In fact I thought that was what would be done first, but when Kelly presented a draft I thought, hey, maybe this is farther along and went straight to proposing mods. So if no one else does it by tomorrow, I'll try to make a subpage of the project page that has some principles that we can try to agree on, and ask people to edit them rather than "vote" on them. It's what I should have done in the first place and I apologise to the community for not having done it when I created the page by copying material from
487:
2711:
distribute the load, and check each other's work. Such a community can even be a resource to outsiders -- to continue my example, if someone else needs to check a geological fact, they can go to the geology community. Most or all of the WikiProjects are fall into this category. The other benefit from community building is less tangible. By making
Knowledge (XXG) a place people feel like they belong, where they want to come to, we increase the overall quality and quantity of contribution. These are all Good Things, and reasons why User Boxes can be Good Things.
2185:
you-name-itspace. (and yes I possibly run afoul of Raul's rule about who knows copy law and who doesn't). NPOV is a policy of
Knowledge (XXG). It applies where it is chosen to apply. It's an unshakable policy, with respect to articles. Jimbo has said it is not negotiable. However he did NOT say it applies to userspace, and common convention here, as this newb sees it, is that it is OK for users to say they have a point of view. That's getting to the crux of the problem. Is it or isn't it OK? I think it is, I think policy and precedent here say it is too... see
3952:
because someone has a liberal user box doesn't mean they are a POV pusher but having one may attract POV pushers to them and then they educate such people about the importance of nuetrality and if they realize the POV pushers doesn't care they can keep an eye on them. I believe most editors agree with and support NPOV and it is probaly easier to convince like-minded POV pushers to reform than opposing POV pushers. In general userboxes can be a tool to rid us POV problems and getting rid of them will not prevent POV gangs from forming.--
2207:
discussion without this. Here are some examples of edits I've made to talk pages expressing my POV: "I really don't think this section is going to work out"; "If people were to come forth with examples of the term "heteroflexible" being specifically used in the news media and so on, I think that would be grounds for re-opening the debate on this topic"; "The assumption here that any criticism of
Christianity must be based on false premises seemed offbase and not at all NPOV to me"; "I also believe that practitioners of my own religion,
1476:
Presumably everyone should be equal here, and I think it's unfortunately very tempting in some situations (edit compromises, etc.) to treat people differently based on their standing in the community. I think userboxes are potentially a force for this kind of de-equalization, but after reading this whole damn page and changing my mind several times, I think that having regulations would have more of a de-equalizing effect than any userbox ever could. The more rules there are to enforce, the more authority people can acquire.
2618:- userboxes can easily be used by POV pushers to enable them to contact a large number of like-minded people so as to destroy the effectiveness of our neutrality policy by subverting normal consensus-based decision-making. Case in point: 9 out of 11 keep voters in the Catholic Alliance deletion debate did so after being contacted by the page's creator who found them through a userbox declaring them to be Catholics and placing them into a category that he was able to scan at the press of a button. (this has to do with usage)
2755:- userboxes can easily be used by POV pushers to enable them to contact a large number of like-minded people so as to destroy the effectiveness of our neutrality policy by subverting normal consensus-based decision-making. Case in point: 9 out of 11 keep voters in the Catholic Alliance deletion debate did so after being contacted by the page's creator who found them through a userbox declaring them to be Catholics and placing them into a category that he was able to scan at the press of a button. (this has to do with usage)
1452:
on your page with no template doesn't even bother me as much as having the templates. It also allows for personalization and hopefully you can discuss your views rather than advertise them. I would not advise users having such things on their user page but I do think it's a step above having it in a template. I also think individualization of that kind of thing makes it better. It's not mob response it's personal opinion. Those are the main differences I see.
2904:. The problem is that we have situations in which we permit majority-rule voting. That is, we're having votes where we should be having discussion to reach consensus. That actually violates NPOV, as we're suppressing minority opinion rather than accurately representing it. The "problem" with userbox/categories is that they enhance this problem. Userboxes/categories also enhance our ability to locate consensus on issues. Fix the problem, not the symptom. —
31:
234:, wikimeetups, and many many other things) help editors be better editors and be more prolific editors. WP is not a free speech zone but userboxes, unless they are hateful, are part of commmunity. Yes, like pop bottles from the breakroom in a factory, they can be misused, but it is the misuse we should censure, not the tool. Fundamentally, user boxes, even ones that show POV, are part of WP community and should be cherished. IMHO. ++
3623:
in the past when I needed them. Advogato is a community of free software specialists, people who produce most of the software, from PHP, Mysql, Mediawiki, Apache and Squid, that powers
Knowledge (XXG). Being part of that community says something about my skills and experience in such matter (though not nearly enough, since I've been in the business for 30 years). Think of it as a Project Babel for software developers. --
3740:
3681:
457:
996:
doing the work of the
Democratic Party, or being a communist, or some ridiculous thing like that. These userboxes aren't just "fun", they are clear statements that I edit articles with a specific POV related to this debate, and so am going to take badly to opposing views, even if I'd like to claim otherwise. This isn't good for anyone, and so we need to be careful how much free reign e allwo with these templates.
1543:"The Knowledge (XXG) community is fairly tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic," may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia."
365:
somewhere explaining what he/she was doing and why. After the RfC, there is no excuse for that kind of behavior and I don't see how it serves any purpose other than to irritate people. (It's worked; I'm irritated.) The point about userbox proliferation has been made, and the people here are working to remedy the problem. Mass userbox deletion with no explanation given is absolutely uncalled for. -
3904:
3577:
3448:
2837:
2261:
cranking through all the boxes and fixing them. My point is that violating Fair Use can get WP sued if someone pushed the matter. Violating NPOV is not likely to get WP sued. Hence they are different. But to your point of picking and choosing, I agree, there should not be picking and choosing. That's not the same as deciding which policies apply to what by applying principles though. ++
1396:
their own userboxes? If a bigot wants to express their bigotry through a userbox, then I say be my guest - you want to mark yourself as a bigot, then look forward to thorough checking of your facts and plenty of reversions. It's the covert actions - putting in advocacy of racism under the cover of NPOV, or through sock puppetry - that really threatens
Knowledge (XXG)'s integrity. --
3899:
3572:
3443:
2832:
1864:. I see the fact that template namespace is not user page namespace as a technicality; user boxes are, by definition, intended for user pages, and thus can be considered part of user space. OTOH, it does seem somewhat counter to the spirit of the Knowledge (XXG) project to fill one's user pages with POV just because we can. Spirit vs letter of the law and all that. --
1441:, in your example, let's imagine you really did hate them, and stated it in plain text on your userpage. Let's say the imaginary Rasta had a picture of Haile Selassie on his/her userpage. Would that not create tension in the same manner? What's next, that we disallow people to put any pictures or statements in writing about their religion, etc. on their userpages? --
1137:
2636:
categories help find other users knowledgeable or interested about the same subjects to help improve articles that might otherwise be neglected. It's not so different from a WikiProject or from users in fact stating their interests on their user page without using a "user box" for it as has been going on for a long time, or user categories
1066:
FSM box and an atheist box on my page), but I would not ban/delete it. It MAY contain a copyrighted image (I haven't checked). However the MOST damning thing about it is how bright yellow and orange it is. Those colors are so jarring they must not be suffered to be shown together. (K, kidding about that last part. But they ARE jarring!) ++
579:
subjective and no one should contemptuously or arrogantly or high-handedly act as if their assessment is unquestionable. Voting can not make unencyclopedic behavior acceptable, but what does and what does not help build the encyclopedia is no one person's right to decide. I think the real issues are in that mess of words
2984:, where I strongly argue for automatically giving experts a bit more credence until they blow it. That wasn't a very popular viewpoint.) So maybe you're saying that closing admins do value old hands more and let them get away with "delete, nn fancruft" instead of a more reasoned explanation or verifiable points? ++
454:. I know what my POV regarding categorisation is - that is laid out in proposal #4, but achieving consensus here is going to be very difficult. The final solution would be to ban templatising any userbox, and forcing users to create individual ones for each's page... but that wouldn't be very popular methinks!
3932:
what prompted the POV pushing and copy that disscussion back to the relavent site. Userboxes will not make an editor a POV pusher, but it can help those who respect nuetrality find the POV pushing disscusions and join in to inform them why it is a problem and maybe educate them or shame them into reforming--
824:
regulating userboxes. It is the intent of those working on this proposal to address as many of these concerns as satisfactorily as possible, so we may be advised not to limit ourselves to either "drawing up a set of regulations" or "not doing anything at all". There may be a third way to resolve this.
787:
this would be to encourage users to subst: userbox templates (I've already done that on my user page) - which, incidentally, also affords a certain protection of their userpage is someone decided to vandalize (or delete) their userbox template(s). I say "encourage", not "require" - I don't want to see
3564:
Tony, I think the benefit of the community is for the benefit of Knowledge (XXG). It's time we realise that the more we mistreat the community and expect them to work like robots "for the good of the encyclopedia" without any other form of reward, the less this project will work. This reminds me very
3439:
I think it is very important to maintain these userboxes, because it does lead to a more balanced POV for Knowledge (XXG) overall. In fact, people will really only "canvas" others of a similar point of view to come when the opposite point of view has more power in a dispute. For example, if a certain
3382:
I think the issue here is very different. Because people have general freedom of expression on user pages, it is important to ensure that this doesnn't leak into the category space and enable pushers of one point of view or another. That is what the belief-based userboxes do (I've no great objection
2714:
However, as a counter point to all that, it should be noted that putting people into groups does not always build community; indeed, it can do the opposite. Grouping people can divide people. Any time you create a group that is "in", everyone else becomes "out". This is an ancient human behavioral
1465:
Plain text, you got it. I just don't see the difference between expressing your views on politics, religion, etc. in plain text on a userpage and expressing them in a userbox. Some users will always oppose each other when their differing opinions clash, regardless if they have userboxes tagging their
1324:
TCorp, which box are you talking about? The two I created are just code and not boxes... but the "vehemently against Scientology" one is real. That's my problem with this. There is no line for divisive boxes. I would have deleted the against Scientology one as uncivil and bordering attacking if I
1220:
To me, the line is when a userbox can reasonably be seen to cause offense, such as a userbox that says the user hates Jews/blacks/Scientologists. The definition of 'reasonable' should, of course, be left to the community on a case-by-case basis, but that's where I feel the line in the sand should be.
1156:
Not to be apocalyptic but, what exactly is the line here? I would hope most users would find that unacceptable on a user page? I don't think it would surprise many to know that we do have bigots here. There's a difference. Liberals and conservatives can get along. But it's a different matter for
1065:
an advocacy, it is not asking other users to dislike Scientology. Jimbo has asked us to deemphasise external beliefs, so it's not a box I'd choose to use, and it's in a category that I would put on the "discouraged" list (I support the notion of discouraged sorts of boxes, although I confess I have a
995:
for example. This doesn't need to be on userpages, and belongs on blogs. Knowledge (XXG) needs to stay focused, and if your a new user who sees someone revert your edits to Bush's article for example, and go to their userpage, and see that userbox, it's likely you will start a partisan argument about
851:
I'm glad people are looking for a compromise, and there is certainly something to say for your idea. But I do think we need a decision wether userboxes with a pov are allowed or not - otherwise I'm afraid we'll be debating the issue forever, for every userbox created (and probably afterwards proposed
687:
English but a lot of the things we write about (and even a lot of the sources that we use) aren't in English. If someone finds a source in Lower Sorbian but they don't speak it, and you have the Babel box, maybe they can come to you for help with it? That's one possible use of the Babel boxes. But
483:
so users could find them easily, but people wouldn't be able to target large amounts of say...Christians, so attacks would reduce or maybe even dissapear as POV bashers would only see a person's POV if they actually went on their userpage (which they wouldn't know to unless someone said that they has
3796:
We saw a demonstration already (albeit hypothetical) of a language box possibly enabling POV-push-rallying. I would say that computer languages, hypothetically, could be the same thing. If someone starts pushing the POV (in the COBOL article) that COBOL rocks and Java sucks rocks, someone else could
3548:
interpretation of what's in the interest of Knowledge (XXG) (apparently considering yourself far above the community) and do that without any concern for consensus, thereby carelessly disturbing hundreds of userpages. Actions like these are far more dangerous then a single userbox. Besides, you keep
2930:
is expressing your preference, your opinion. For your keep/delete to carry much weight with the closing admin when he or she evaluates consensus, though, you should try to either introduce new points, or at least reference the logical support points made previously (one way is to refer to the editor
1817:
I will continue to argue strongly that userboxes should be allowed to show POV, but I nevertheless feel that NPOV is a policy that is relevant. it's relevant in that it doesn't apply as strongly (or at all) in userspace and should be mentioned in the list of relevant policies. (while you could argue
1573:
supports the ability to maintain a personal user page with personal opinion details. However, it also repeatedly emphasizes that the overall idea behind user pages on WP is to facilitate the maintenance of an encyclopedia, not to simply let people describe themselves for the heck of it. That's all
1451:
I read this wrong the first time so let me just make sure I'm getting it right. Instead of having a userbox you have it in plain text. Well, firstly it's not institutionalized in templates so it's a purely individual action. There are no categories to link users together by this. Having the code
1332:
And DragonHawk, that's what I'm trying to get to. Where do we draw the line... and there seems to be existing policy that is very related to the Scientology one... and definitely to the two fake ones I created. It just becomes problematic when confrontational ones are being kept. I suppose in the
1020:
I think that the user space is a suitable place for such sentiments. An attempt to censor userboxes is harmful to the purpose of user pages. I for one would rather have this information, and appreciate the opportunity to make my POV clear to the community, even as I make my best effort to maintain
1010:
I'll agree that such sentiment is unhealthy. But do you think that a policy against such userboxes really addresses the underlying problem? Every editor has POV. Being up front about one's POV in userspace but striving for NPOV in articles is the best scenario, in my view. I don't think a "don't ask
786:
I do agree that some hard facts would be helpful. However, I also feel that server load is a legitimate concern, particularly as userboxes are editted (and recently, deleted and undeleted) with a relatively large frequency, forcing many pages to have caching issues. My view is that a simple "fix" to
737:
We need to quantify the effect that userbox templates have on Knowledge (XXG), in terms of sever load or whatever. This will give us an idea of the urgency of this task and how widespread the change needs to be. I have seen a couple of people make comments vaguely linking userbox proliferation and
182:
Some people appear to emphasize the personal, individual aspects -- free expression, free speech, all that good stuff -- as well as community-building. Others (myself included) appear to focus on the ultimate goal of Knowledge (XXG) to be an encyclopedia, and consider anything not conducive to that
3951:
I just read what I wrote again perhaps ban is the wrong as I don't imagine blocking people for this is a good idea. But to have guideline against vote campaigning is more what I mean. I don't see why this should make any problems between admins and non-admins if there is no banning. In fact just
3931:
It is really important that all the disscusion about why an article should be deleted or kept stay on the same page. And also that the proccess is transparent. Maybe it is unenforcable. Maybe it would be enough that when something seems fishy someone would be able to track down through userboxes
3869:
I think that most important issue against userboxes is that POV-pushing. However we should not ban the tool, but rather ban the action. POV-pushers will simply find another tool. And userbox categories can be used to great effect to enforce a ban on POV-pushing. It will be much harder to ferret
3637:
Okay, so Advogato is directly related to WP. But as for the Babelboxes being used to find someone with language skills: someone looking for information about a religion or a political stance can use religious and political userboxes to find someone knowledgeable in those areas. I don't see any harm
3622:
Babel boxes identify me as a native speaker of one European language, a fairly skilled speaker of another, and a basic understanding of a third. Someone wanting a rough translation of a foreign language article may look for people with such skills, and I have gone to people with such skills myself
3023:
I'm sorry that my examples are all based around similar issues. It's not that I have a thing about Catholics (I was raised as a Catholic myself), but that (including the example that I gave before) these are the three examples that come most readily to hand. I remembered the Pitchka one from last
2710:
One thing user boxes let us do is build communities. Communuity building yields two major kinds of benefits. One is that people interested in the same things, or sharing knowledge on the same subjects, can collaborate better as a community. Experts on, say, geology, can coordinate their efforts,
2369:
From my perspective, the actual problem seen at least by Tony Sidaway is that userboxes are being used to rally POV crusades (especially regarding deletion). I would prefer a policy to deter this behavior directly, whether carried out through userboxes or not, by blocking/banning the users engaging
1418:
it doesn't matter in the least that I'm a bigot. However, if I have a tag that says I'm opposed to the Rastafarian movement and a Rasta is editing the article it creates unneeded tension. Even on related articles it creates unneeded tension because it can automatically make you defensive acting.
1377:
As long as derogatory terms regarding ethnicity, etc. does not occur in userboxes, I see absolutely no reason, whatever, for deleting them. This whole issue is about freedom of expression. Right now, I can think only of a very few possible userboxes I'd be in favor of deleting, like if someone made
229:
say. The GOAL here is to write an encyclopedia, just as the goal of an automobile factory is to make automobiles. Yet automobile factories have break rooms and candy machines and places where people hang out and talk, and even after hours clubs and activities and on and on and on. Those all have to
220:
so admirably carried out. I think we are doing better now than we were, but I note that people still are engaging in back and forth on the page. My understanding of how one does policy proposals is that the proposal is a draft, worked on, and that comments occur on the talk pages. So we still could
3854:
I think we're forgetting about something. First of all, I think we all agree that Wikipedians who want to muster the vote to support their POV can and do do this with userbox categories, and can and do do this with mechanisms other than user boxen and their respective category. But, likewise, they
3601:
I'm not getting the difference between having the Advogato userbox on your userpage and having userboxes reflecting your political and religious beliefs. Neither is relevant to writing Knowledge (XXG); both can help people with similar interests find you. For that matter (as I mentioned above) how
3424:
userbox on my own page that I constructed myself. It identifies me as an apprentice member of the Advogato community, which describes itself as "a community resource for free software developers." However this is not quite the same as a box identifying me as a Bigendian in politics, an Omnian in
3016:
Perhaps people are saying this was a one-off, a fluke, just one user who overstepped that mark. Not a bit of it. Only the previous week, the following two incidents took place and again involved (to some greater of lesser extent) someone looking in a user category planted on a page by a user box
2802:
Ya, it does (read like a personal view) at that, even after you AGFed it... See if Tony's willing to move it out of the policies list and into the appropriate pros/cons section would be my suggestion. (the pro/cons sections still don't quite seem to have the right titles either but they're clearer
2184:
My response: In my view these are different things. Fair use is legalistic. ALL publications, websites, etc, at least those in the US, have to abide by Fair use, or may get sued. It applies to ALL content, and specifically, it applies at WP in articlespace, templatespace, categoryspace, userspace,
426:
I am not certain that 'both sides have agreed that there "are" some userboxes which have got to go'. This seems to be a bold statement. I think that under the current circumstances, boxes should not be restricted. There is already the TfD process for removing templates, and it should work quite
3895:
From what I gather, Birgitte, you're proposing that we ban, say, liberal users who have a liberal userbox to vote on the deletion/keeping of liberal-related articles. That is, that the action of informing like-minded Wikipedians in a dispute should be banned, rather than the userboxes themselves.
2635:
People will always find other Wikipedians with similar beliefs or interests and form groups of friends in their time on Knowledge (XXG) anyway, this only speeds the process and gives less of an advantage to newer users who haven't been around long enough to develop a network of Wiki-friends. Also
2544:
I agree its not userboxes which is the problem, also its not users grouping themselves together. What is the problem is when users group together in an attempt to go against the core NPOV policy, that is when userboxes are used as find users to swing a vote for a particular POV. Even if userboxes
2397:
If userboxes did not add to categories would that be as good (or almost as good) of a stopgap as deleting them altogether? I suspect that the dedicated team of editors at the Userbox project, if that were the consensus, would have that fixed in nothing flat. The speed at which they are fixing the
2156:
No, we cannot agree to the above. Categories do not make POV edits. Wikipedians make POV edits, and when they do so, such edits are reverted to maintain NPOV. Userboxes are part of user space, and involved in user categorization. There is no compelling reason to remove the category associated
1691:
have copyvio problems. Fair use is for purpose of review and commentary, and nothing else, and I'm not sure I see how showing how you feel about Pepsi, for example, is fair use by any stretch of the imagination. I think the mechaniasm that has been proposed (see the archived older version of the
1409:
The point is you have to judge the merits of a belief system in order to differentiate like that... and why would wikipedia be judging the merits of two different belief systems? What I did was satire to make a point. A more reasonable exmample is "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam". It
1189:
Ditto Sept. If someone actually feels that way, I'd much rather they admit this bias openly than keep it a hidden agenda. Not that the majority of such people ever would (admit it). But frankly, being willing to expose your own bias can be positive to the WP mission, because others will have more
1083:
What I'm having difficulty figuring out is why many of the userbox opponents a) think that having a POV keeps us from editing NPOV (seriously, almost everyone has a POV on something), b) think that prohibiting userboxes and/or having "don't ask don't tell" keeps anyone from having a POV, c) think
295:
Furthermore, DragonHawk makes a good point about differing perspectives on userpages. But here's something to think about: allowing more personal, individual userpages still means that other editors are free to have more "encyclopedic" userpages if they want; on the other hand, being stricter and
110:
My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that we stop trying to write proposed wordings of rules and "voting" on them. Rather, I think an approach would be to try to get principles (based on core WP values and well accepted precedent) articulated and arrive at consensus (or realise that it can't be
3526:, as any good wikipedian is required to. If there exists a consensus to permit destructive actions, I will still not feel obliged to permit Knowledge (XXG) to be destroyed by its community. I stand by those words and I expect you and every other Wikpedian to do the same. Otherwise this really
3472:
than a democracy; we want power of logic to be the most important, not power in numbers. The ability to canvas like-minded users is only good if those users add additional logical arguments to the disucssion, and is not useful if they simply vote "me too". Also, allowing votes to swing one way
1737:
I think maintaing the GFDL requirements on userpage content (images included) would be beneficial. It would mean that the content of userpages can be freely reproduced without having to verify the copyright status of every element in the page. Screenshots of Knowledge (XXG) pages (with images)
1395:
line: sunshine is the best disinfectant. An open project such as this is going to inevitably attract evil people (like real bigots) who wish to bend the project to their evil own ends (like making bigotry seem acceptable). But why bother worrying about the overt things such people do like flying
947:
Regarding the proliferation of user boxes, I find this an endearing and valuable community-building aspect of WP. Since there are few tangible rewards for working on wikipedia, camaraderie is really really important. I think we should enforce that they are all of the form "Template:User ___" but
3493:
editing Knowledge (XXG) from a pro- or anti- atheist/circumcusionist/abortionist/bigendian/antidisestablishmentarian point of view is fundamentally wrong. Every single edit by every single editor must be written from a neutral stance and in the interests of Knowledge (XXG). Organising raids on
2206:
I'd like to note that NPOV does not apply to talk pages the same way it does to articles, either. As far as I can tell, users are free to make their personal POVs clear on talk page discussions when they are relevant to editing of the article. In fact, I don't see how we could have productive
745:
We need to come up with specific instances where userbox templates have been used for various purposes, good or bad, so that we can evaluate the non-technical issues that have been brought up. If userboxes and their corresponding categories are being used for vote-stuffing, provide examples. -
604:
Userboxes are a fad. I saw what others were doing and started adding my own before I saw how silly some had gotten IMHO...but that's just it: my opinion. What does it really matter if someone writes "I am a christain" on their userpage or puts/references a pretty box with a symbol of a cross on
2828:
I don't think that if you look at the case objectively, userboxes on political stances have any detrimental effect. It's mentioned above that Catholic users had been called in and therefore artificially made it seem as if the article's Catholic POV was correct. However, it seems that these are
2421:
The problem is that as a stopgap it is harmful to other concerns as well, both in that it pointlessly alienates the many people who manage to use these userboxes harmlessly, and in that it deprives us of the utility gained by having people organized into these categories when they are employed
2383:
Yes, it's a stopgap. But the least we can do is to deny the enemy of consensus and neutrality the free use of the most powerful tools at our disposal. If I want to tell the world I'm a Bigendian I'll do so, but it would be wrong for me to add a "Bigendian Wikipedians" category to my userpage
2238:
My counter-response: First off, Fair Use is considered a guideline on Knowledge (XXG). I'm not refering to the legal equivalent, I'm refering to Knowledge (XXG)'s interpretation of it, and the way it is applied. I am not trying to interpret the policies and guidelines any differently than they
1709:
I also agree with Lar very strongly. I know that Wikipedians are creative people, so if people wish to have an icon on their userbox, they should try to be creative and come up with their own icon. However, with some of the recent problems we have been seeing with the servers, it would be each
2260:
You won't see me supporting that stance. I think all fair use images need to be removed from userboxes, forthwith, and do not see fair use as a valid defence for inclusion copyvio images in boxes (as I have said already, rather emphatically). But they ARE being removed. the Userbox project is
2142:
There is an issue of enforcement. As newbies learn how to put things in categories, and use the Special Pages to find stuff that needs better linking, this policy will be violated. People like me who have been members for 6 months, still have lots of Wiki stuff to learn, so in some areas we
1897:
Personally, I don't think the real issue is with the namespace. The namespace distinction is mainly technical. The real issue with NPOV here, I think, is about the intent of Knowledge (XXG). I think, in general, the idea is that POV should be allowed on user pages because that helps others
823:
As Wikipedians, we must always try to make compromises in a fashion that addresses as many people's concerns as possible. As can be seen above, many people have concerns that they feel are best addressed by regulating userboxes in certain ways. Similarly, others have concerns with the idea of
364:
I find this very upsetting. I fail to see what urgent threat is posed by these userboxes that could not wait two or three days until we hash out some sort of preliminary policy, and I am extremely offended that whoever deleted these userboxes didn't have the common courtesy to post a message
658:, and I decided to remove everything from my user page that wasn't related to writing an encyclopedia. I realized that meant removing not only the religious, political, etc., user boxes from my page, but the Babel boxes as well, because frankly, the fact that I have only a basic knowledge of
2113:. This is one of the four "key policies" listed, but has no single page of it's own (it actually has several). This policy is extremely relevant to this discussion, I think. I think it's clear that anything, user page or otherwise, which fails to respect other Wikipedians is Not Good. --
1475:
I always found the userboxes a little off-putting, because I'm a little ambivalent about the whole idea of a Knowledge (XXG) "community". It's good for people to be able to find each other and organize themselves, of course, but I think it's a bad idea for people to acquire reputations.
578:
Little pretty boxes are not the issue. Use of wikipedia for nonencyclopedic purposes is a key issue in the use of pretty boxes. Deal with the real issues and the derived cases take care of themselves. To what extent social behavior on Knowledge (XXG) enhances encyclopedia building is highly
2220:
Excellent example. Arguably trying to speak NPOV-ishly in that context would be impossible and worse, useless to making progress. Another place where POV comes up is in (x)fD... if only to disclose one's leanings and perhaps establish credibility on the topic of notability, although that's
805:
It is true that the boxes are frequently edited at this point in time. (The image in the firefox template seems to change every other hour.) I assume that this is so because the idea is still very young, and the really useful boxes are still being developped. (Useful boxes would be project
3277:
article describing a law suit which is currently taking place and some of the risks involved in using such barbaric devices. Since you are listed as Pro-Life I was wondering if you might restore the original version, for I don't personally want to get baited into a 3rvt ban. Thank you,
1494:
that policies can still be relevant even if they don't necessarily apply. Remember also that policies can be changed. So, references to existing policy should not be considered a finding of law, but rather, a pointer to existing concensus which help guide us here. So, to that end, I
951:
Regarding POV on user pages: I believe that WP policy allows for POV in the User: namespace (and thus templates used in user space). Moreover, I find specific value in people placing their personal biases and alignments on their user pages. I am under no such delusion that we can ever
1410:
doesn't carry the racial baggage of Judaism so it's clearly along the same lines. The thing about bigots is they don't always edit on the pages of what they are prejudiced about. I could hate the Rastas but you wouldn't see it manifest because I don't edit pages relating to the
68:
Although I do understand the importance and usefullness of having userboxes, we should keep in mind that Knowledge (XXG) is a developing encyclopedia, not a Myspace or a blog. Userboxes should definitely be used, but there should be limits/policies of what we can put in those
1738:
already appear in media and publications. A third-party would not expect to recieve a C&D from another third-party for publishing something obtained from Knowledge (XXG), even if it's from userspace. This would cast doubt on the veracity of our other copyright claims. —
3341:
People may not be allowed to blatantly push POV on WikiProjects, but they can still link to relevant articles with the intentions that those people with that particular POV will revert war because of the very fact they're in a particular Project: In fact Categories are much
2784:
I was just about to add it back then came back after realising you had already hah. Didn't read properly }. Ok, I tried to make it a bit more NPOV: It must be noted that most of the "applicable policy" bit is things from the "concerns about not regulating userboxes" bit.
1766:(are these two redirects to the same place? ) certain design features, of templates inside templates, contribute mightily to server load, making it difficult for us to edit anything on Wiki. There's also reference to abuse of Categories, which I interpret as applying to
1728:- copyright is an issue for WP as it hosts the images. Copyright violation in a userbox should be speadily dealt with as for any other image copyright violation (i.e. the image should be deleted), as for the rest of the userbox - its validity is discussed elsewhere here.
3831:
Very true, in theory anyways. Consensus is not based on the number of votes. If 100 people vote one way on an issue without justifying their votes, and 10 vote against them with reasonable, sound and neutral arguments, the issue should be resolved in the 10's favor. See
1873:
Might I suggest that we create a new "namespace"? Although MediaWiki requires the creation of entirely new namespaces to be done on the server, namespaces may be simulated by the creation of WikiLinks that have a section preceeded by :. For example, we could then put
2370:
in it, rather than deleting the userboxes themselves, which 95% of users seem able to employ harmlessly. Deleting the userboxes is at best a stopgap, as users who are operating with the intent of deliberatly subverting neutrality will surely find another way to do so.
1818:
that every policy that doesn't apply in user space could be mentioned, the POV/NPOVness of boxes seems to be a critical thing that this debate turns on. I think CIVIL bears mentioning here too for the same reason, and it is in fact mentioned just above that bullet. ++
2556:
Luckly we have a strong consensus policy, to prevent a vote for delection all which is needed is one post pointing out the coordinated action of other posters and the vote should fail. Ultimately coordinated actions against NPOV could result in users being banned.
832:
where people propose new userboxes and they are created or not based on that vote? Then, we could create a speedy delete criteria for any new userbox created that hasn't gone through this voting process. At least that would regulate it more than the current scheme
2211:, should be willing to walk hand in hand with Wiccans, but I would not add information on Hellenic polytheism to this article because it is not relevant." Thus, NPOV, as it is being interpreted here, already does not apply to portions of Knowledge (XXG). -
2567:
That policy will simply result in an organization by cells. No one would say talking to two other people on their User:Talk page was "coordination", yet if those two talk to two more, and so on, you've got a regular get-out-the-vote drive. Beware of the
1649:
The concept of group attacks (or impersonal attacks, as someone called them) needs to be well defined, otherwise "group attack" can be invoked to delete virtually any unpopular POV that can be presented as an implicit attack on those holding the contrary
2939:
don't delete, are you crazy!!!11!!1!!!" tend to carry a lot less weight than ones that refute the reasons the editor proposing the delete gave, with calm, logical, reasoned statements, or even better, verifiable facts. (and vice versa when advocating
3569:- "every good Romanian must always put the interests of the Party before his or her own interests". It simply doesn't work that way. This encyclopedia's direction is inspired very much by what the community thinks, since they're the ones writing it.
3024:
month, and found the Chooserrr one while looking for it. I don't even strongly disagree with the opinions expressed in the talk page spam, but I do think that this manner of approach severely compromises our policies on consensus and neutrality. s
2724:
Given that criteria, I realize now that perhaps some of the user boxes on my own user page are, perhaps, not as nice as they should be. Rather then saying "I contribute with Foo", perhaps it would be better if I just said "I know a lot about Foo".
1919:, if someone doesn't like my graphing, then it helps if I know their POV so that I can respond to their concerns. When we know each other's POV, then we know how to meet half way. So I would say that user page POV is essential for achieving NPOV. —
1548:
The same section does discourage "opinion pieces not related to Knowledge (XXG) or other non-encyclopedic material", but I don't see how a box stating that a user is a Baptist, a Communist, or a Spaghetti-Monsterist constitutes an "opinion piece".
1466:
various orientations or not. Conflicts will always arise, one way or another. Like-minded users will continue to make contact, userboxes or not. Instead of trying to avoid the inevetable, let's deal with it and make the best of our individuality.--
1776:
Now for people like me, who are newbies at image manipulation code, and who get our stuff by copying what someone else got to work, then tweaking one piece at a time until it works, what we need is a HOW TO on getting stuff that does not violate
756:
I agree for the need for hard facts on server load. If it is 0.02% of the load, then I say let's be open minded and let people have some fun. But if it is 2% of the load, then I would probably agree to delete even the userboxes I created. —
2552:
Userboxes do actually offer a means of identifying factions. If you suspect a cordinated action then you could actually prove that it is such though looking at their userboxes. Better to keep things in the open than create secret societies.
2398:
fair use issue, and at which they are fixing the multilevel template substitution issue, is nothing short of remarkable (as well as amazingly commendable). PS, Tony, I for one am glad you are here and talking about this. Very glad. Thanks. ++
2979:
on me, not even 1000 edits yet!!! ...). I'm referring to what NEWBIES need to do to make their opinions carry more weight. They need to show their work, so to speak. I'm actually fairly OK with giving seasoned editors more credence (see the
318:
After Kelly´s action some time ago, now all religious userboxes have been speedy deleted. Without any warning or discussion. I think this is outrageous and all userboxes should be protected from now on against this kind of admin vandalism.
519:(Note:I'm pro-userboxes). Substing out a userbox is not even a fix, and remving image to avoid what link's here isn't either, as you can always just run a search for the text of the user box, and get a hit list of all the users that way.
1673:
In the debates that I was involved in regarding userboxes, mainly the Democrat and Republicans, editors who were pro-userboxes states that the Fair Use of images extended into user pages. However, the same people often say that NPOV does
230:
be evaluated in the context of "do these activities enable the making of better automobiles"? If they do not, they should go. My assertion, and the assertion of many of us, is that much of the WP community (barnstars, april fools jokes,
350:
There is absolutely no concensus on how to deal with pov userboxes yet. So it is appalling to just massively delete these ones. I'm not talking about wikipedians who believe in santa here, but about humanists, muslims, jews and so on.
2916:
One of the "problems", or rather contradictions, on this site, is that although there is the "consensus" poliicy, people are being asked to either "keep" or "delete" an article, template, etc. That sure sounds like VOTING to me.
296:
forcing everyone everyone to conform to the latter obviously means that the former isn't allowed. See what I'm saying? The inclusionist way simply allows more options; no one would be forcing you to add unencyclopedic features.
2803:
than they were, the reason there are two sections are to separate userboxes from stating preferences/viewpoints, it's possible there are things about a box that is completely preference statement free that are good or bad) ++
500:
It's not just categories ... there's also the "What links here" page on templates, which would be just as useful for creating POV groups or POV attacks. Userboxes would also have to be subst'd to get rid of this problem.
382:
we had decided that these templates should be deleted, many of the proposals on the table suggest that users should be given the chance to place the code directly on their userpages; deleting the templates AND the pages at
1522:
Commentary on what should and should not be on a user page. Ultimately, it appears inconclusive for this discussion. Opinion pieces not related to Knowledge (XXG) are discouraged, but community-building is encouraged.
3012:
I've mentioned how I think that belief and conviction-based userboxes will be abused and I've given one good example where 9 out of 11 keep voters on an article up for deletion voted after their talk page was spammed.
978:
I think when we get to the point of boxes like this we need to have a policy regulating linking users opposed to certain ideologies. What should be done about things like that? It does seem to be getting out of hand.
2009:. Taken to an extreme, perhaps the whole user box system should be scrapped. Maybe they're really just not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). (I don't really think this myself, but it's a point worth considering.) --
2059:" This is more indirect evidence that the "POV is allowed on user pages" rule perhaps only goes so far. If these user boxes really are interfering with encyclopedic activities, this suggests they do not belong. --
1267:
To work with your example, the line occurs just about right in the middle. Stating "This user strongly opposes abortion" is a harmless statement of principle and is fine by me. Stating "This user strongly opposes
2965:
It's a nice theory, and there are a few admins who really do discount editors who give bad opinions in AfDs. The trouble is that most admins are afraid to discount the opinions of editors in good standing. ---
837:) which basically sees people say, 'Can someone make this?', and it's done. This keeps the deletionists happy by slowing down the influx of new userboxes, and also allows userboxes on all topics to be created."
2469:
Stuff like this will always happen on Knowledge (XXG), what you are trying to do is stop people grouping together by view by making it harder to find people: This is silly, it happens anyway on Knowledge (XXG)
1943:
I've rephrased that to "Expressing one's point of view is not necessarily the same as promoting it," which I think is the intent of the original remark. I would hope everyone can understand that distinction.
1634:
or a group of persons as defined by a philosophy, religion, ideology, etc. ie. it is one thing to say that we are for or against some label, it is another thing to rephrase the label in a hostile manner.
2179:
that changed what was lined out around NPOV as an objection, Eightball said "Many say that Fair Use extends to userpages, but NPOV does not; this is contradicting. Either they both do, or neither do."
1388:
First of all, comparing the rational dislike of an obnoxious, glorified UFO cult like the Scientologists to Nazism's racism and anti-Semitism is far more offensive than the actual anti-Scientologist tag.
2495:
You don't have to be a Muslim to be a member of Wikiproject Islam, any more than you have to be a resident of Indiana to be a member of Wikiproject Indiana. Wikiproject membership is an indication of
2135:
this is a bad thing when it identifies an interest sub-group that could be used to subvert consensus, or help support general vandalization, and cliques of either ordinary editors or administrators.
1915:, as I sometimes do, then someone who understands my point of view (against it) has a better chance of calling me on my critiques, which keeps me honest, and asking for sources. Similarly, over in
608:
Meaningless issue for us to continue wasting time on and too time consuming to police. Let people build userpages as they see fit as long as it does not violate the userpage policy, which is???? --
1678:
apply to user pages; so where is it that certain policies inexplicably end? Fair Use is not just a guideline; the images are copyrighted, and copyright owners can sue. It's in place for a reason.
1180:
userpage, I'm just as happy to know about it; and I will evaluate their comments accordingly. Putting it on someone else userplage should be discouraged; but I think existing policy will do that.
3508:
Your lip-service to consensus seems not really compatible with the way you've behaved in this discussion till now. I quote you from your talk page: 'what the community thinks is not important.'
333:
some userboxes which have got to go. Protecting the lot makes no difference to deleting them; it's purely symbolic. However, symbolically, it does stop administrators deleting userboxes which
2422:
productively. I don't see any reason to undertake this solution to the problem, which has these obvious flaws, when we could attack the problem directly without causing collateral damage.
3670:
that are the problem, not the userboxes themselves. Therefore, removing automatic categorisation from any userbox template would resolve this issue. I really hate to bring this up, but
87:
to see if we even want a policy, rather than confusing policies about not wanting policies, and trying to keep track of an incredibly complicated vote/debate we had going. If I've been a
2866:
If people are vote stacking I don't think the counter argument is to encourage opposing groups both to stack, as Ronline seems to be advocating (sorry if I mis read but that's my take).
3411:
In this case it seems the userboxes were used to preserve NPOV. By calling for deletion maybe it was the pro-choice who were trying to push their POV? (Don't know what I'm on about!) --
60:
3425:
religion, and that I believe in the rights of fleebles to graze unfettered on the hills. These latter are the kinds of userbox that could lead to abuse (and have already done so). --
2545:
were removed users would still find ways to group together and these could happen outside the sphere of wikipedia where there is less chance of regulation. What is really needed is a
1230:
Definitely, we need to get rid of hate templates like those. I was talking about the opponents of userboxes that merely say "This user is liberal", "This user is an atheist" etc.
271:
Well said indeed. I'll also add that on Knowledge (XXG) there's even more reason to have "break rooms" than at factories, as it's a lot easier and cheaper for us to have to them.
2652:
I suggest refactoring it into a point in one of the pro/cons as it's not a policy point per se. The points are points, they should be countered in the pro/con section. IMHO. ++
2189:. (as an aside, it may be under this interpretation that templatespace can't have POV, so all boxes that did assert POV would have to live in userspace and not templatespace)++
3675:
3671:
3822:
First, the number of votes doesn't matter in AFD so much as the content of the vote. Second, if you suspect bias, just click on their signature and check for a userbox! --
3520:"It's an encyclopedia, and those buttons threaten its identity. It doesn't matter what the community thinks, we must act in the interests of the encyclopedia at all times."
2347:
to try to capture that some people might think these policies are relevant, because there was a lot of back and forth and maybe this is inclusionary enough to be good? ++
3474:
2503:. That's the difference between the two. I support userboxes to indicate Wikiproject membership (and you will note that I have three such userboxes on my user page).
3921:
From what I gather, Birgitte, you're proposing that we ban, say, liberal users who have a liberal userbox to vote on the deletion/keeping of liberal-related articles.'
3737:
One is POV, the other is not. POV categories should not be bundled with userbox templates. That is crucially important. The others are useful to Knowledge (XXG).
2452:(and it's splinter WikiProjects for Shia and Sunni) looks like it's the Islam equivalent of the Catholic WikiProject Sidaway doesn't like so much (there's already a
2132:
this is a good thing when the user box describes a skill that is in demand, to help Wiki encyclopaedia development, like being able to translate between 2 languages.
546:
2/3 of my attempted edits in the last 5 hours have failed due to server load. I do not know how much that is due to failure of the userboxes we love to comply with
739:
3306:
2449:
829:
806:
affiliation, and we have no boxes yet that tell us something about peoples expertise.) I am sure there will be less editing once the userboxes are more complete.--
3440:
article is given, say, a religious slant, Atheist Wikipedians will be able to organise themselves much better to ensure that the article goes back to being NPOV.
47:
17:
3522:
There is no consensus on whether these items are fit for Knowledge (XXG)--far from it. I put the interests of the encyclopedia before those of the community,
2693:
2926:
Ya, it does, doesn't it? That wording choice confuses me too, except there are really no better shorthands available. What you are really doing when you say
1621:
A personal attack is a attach on a particular person. By extension, it could be argued that user boxes should not be used to attack a particular person or
3489:
It's an interesting assumption that such unscrupulous methods would only ever be used to redress "balance", but the underlying assumption that people have
3397:
Maybe, but the problem is it can sometimes be helpful for good faith actions like trying to find people with similar interests to contribute with though --
2138:
there is a grey area in between where people say they interested in editing certain topics, or have certain qualifications that can help with verification.
919:. The spirit of anyone can edit means you can contribute to Knowledge (XXG) building an encyclopedia, and you must do so with the bounds of policy and the
1977:
Apart from the fact whether particular userbox can divide the community, unequal treatment of it or the opposing one can further increase the tension. --
956:
escape POV (we can only do our best to approach NPOV), so it is very helpful when checking history or contributions to see where people are coming from.
2981:
1911:
When a group of editors all understand each others' POVs, then they have a much better chance of attaining a NPOV together. For example, if I'm editing
416:
Userboxes should not be speedied, especially while such discussions are ongoing. Such behavior is certainly uncivil, and should be treated as such.
880:
I still think that fails to address the concern of instruction creep, and especially process creep. Also, why institutionalize such a silly fad? —
1835:
It largely depends on what namespace the template is created in, doesn't it? That's a bit of a technicality, but I think it might be true anyway.
178:'s idea may be a good one. I see much of the controversy here as stemming from differences in how people view user pages. The question becomes,
3346:
to gather large amount of editors to sway votes etc because there is no centralised message board, each person must be contacted individually. --
3313:
go on without userboxes: People naturally form groups of friends and some do tend to pick up this "pack reverting" technique, categories or no --
1753:
550:, how much is normal for this time of day (I usually editing late nite), or other purposes. Meanwhile the community disruption continues with
2761:
So I put it back. It's a valid policy concern whether you agree with it or not, and we must be careful not to lose text accidentally. IMHO. ++
3855:
can be used to help the project: I see on my user talk page right now a solicitation to help get an article up to FA status because I was in
304:
279:
695:
508:
2104:
1287:
The line is described in existing wikipedia policy and guidelines concerning User Page content. Those boxes would & should be deleted.
91:
in doing this, say so here, but also say why, and try to see if we can get a genuine discussion going rather than a straw poll. Thanks.
772:
530:
666:. If the consensus is that userboxes must be relevant to writing Knowledge (XXG), doesn't that mean the Babel boxes have to go too? --
3859:(I don't display the userbox, but the category is attached to a userbox). We need to consider both the good and the bad on this one.
1419:
Integrity of the article is threatened equally either way. Civility is much more likely to be threatened if people use those boxes.
2086:
1954:
1593:
1559:
261:
206:
3923:
That is not what I mean. I think we should ban vote campaigning. Although there is no problem with people leaving a message like
834:
137:
Yes, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. We need to have a knock-down drag-out brawl over whether to even have a policy first. —
1934:
Reading the page now, it says "Having a POV is not the same as advocating one." That's the dumbest statement I have ever heard.
1615:
3020:
Of course we don't know how many times someone has abused these categories in a savvy way, contacting people by email instead.
3704:
1773:
In my POV opinion, like copyright violation avoidance, server protection policy should be an exception to consensus building.
3237:
2569:
1345:
I was talking about the ones you made. I know that they're not boxes, but I said they should have been deleted. I also voted
662:
is about as relevant to writing an English-language encyclopedia as the fact that I eat meat and was born in the year of the
2527:
2453:
183:
goal as inappropriate. I suspect reaching consensus on this point (if possible) will make much of the rest of this moot. --
486:
3843:
3038:
2057:
Knowledge (XXG) ... restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia.
771:
As a rough estimate, I think the number must be way below two percent, maybe even lower than 0.02 percent. Have a look at
2715:
pattern. Being a member of a group that others are not a member of can be powerful and addictive in all the wrong ways.
3856:
2445:- But they're not banned or with possible policy to stop users "grouping" together: This happens anyway in the long run:
2426:
2374:
1878:
3966:
3946:
3915:
3888:
3863:
3846:
3826:
3813:
3781:
3753:
3718:
3694:
3653:
3631:
3613:
3588:
3553:
3538:
3512:
3502:
3481:
3459:
3433:
3415:
3405:
3391:
3376:
3354:
3321:
3296:
3200:
2970:
2960:
2921:
2890:
2848:
2815:
2793:
2773:
2732:
2700:
2678:
2664:
2599:
2576:
2561:
2536:
2512:
2478:
2429:
2410:
2392:
2377:
2359:
2325:
2304:
2273:
2243:
2233:
2215:
2201:
2161:
2150:
2117:
2091:
2063:
2038:
2013:
1984:
1968:
1959:
1938:
1925:
1906:
1892:
1868:
1844:
1830:
1788:
1732:
1716:
1704:
1682:
1654:
1644:
1629:
1598:
1578:
1564:
1527:
1506:
1480:
1470:
1459:
1445:
1426:
1400:
1382:
1367:
1340:
1316:
1293:
1276:
1262:
1234:
1225:
1213:
1184:
1168:
1088:
1078:
1052:
1043:
1025:
1015:
1005:
986:
960:
932:
906:
873:
856:
846:
810:
796:
779:
765:
750:
720:
699:
677:
644:
633:
612:
587:
565:
535:
512:
495:
480:
470:
431:
420:
411:
391:
369:
355:
341:
323:
308:
283:
266:
246:
211:
187:
167:
153:
131:
100:
73:
3215:. Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion.
2684:
The example about '9 of 11 keep voters' is fallacious, anyway. If you want to demonstrate a POV bias, what matters is
1898:
understand one's contributions, and thus contributes towards harmonious editing. However, I don't see that policy as
3216:
2976:
2948:, and not one that I am sure I've completely grokked yet myself. But it's an important one to keep in mind. IMHO.++
1194:
page had that latter userbox on their page, I'd have some info on how I might perceive their edits. But of course,
704:
I contend that most babel boxes are un-encyclopediatic. On the English site it is only useful to denote if you 1)
38:
3810:
3399:
3370:
3348:
3315:
3185:
3155:
2993:
2957:
2887:
2812:
2787:
2770:
2672:
2661:
2596:
2472:
2407:
2356:
2270:
2230:
2198:
1827:
1701:
1075:
870:
828:
I had this suggestion on the proposals page, but it got lost in the crowd: "Could there possibly be a place like
630:
301:
276:
243:
128:
3762:
POV, but they certainly can be. If you have a user from Northern Ireland who identifies as a speaker of either
3041:) (aka Dwain) between 2336 on 15 December, 2005 and 0254 the following morning contacts the following editors:
1964:
Now I believe that is a good point; the original wording, to me, essentially just switched adjectives. Thanks.
3302:
1710:
template's creators wishes to include an icon or not. However, it must be under a free license, not fair use.
1637:
pro or con X may be acceptable, "kill all the X" or labeling the X as some kind of killers, is certainly not,
688:
let me reiterate that I fully agree that all Babel/user boxes must be relevant to writing an encyclopedia. --
3053:
1021:
NPOV in the article space. Censoring user page content that does not violate policy is a poor precedent. --
446:
consensus supports any userbox being placed on a user's page, as it is free to be POV. The issue comes from
2423:
2371:
1467:
1442:
1379:
1011:
don't tell" policy (if that's what you're proposing) does anything except make the problems more insidious.
861:
Agreed, the root question needs consensus. See below. (and feel free to refactor or move it if necessary) ++
3116:
3628:
3535:
3499:
3430:
3421:
3388:
3293:
2508:
2389:
1231:
1085:
1039:
659:
297:
272:
116:
2752:
2615:
1811:
1537:
966:
I have not really made up my mind, nor do I think this is too important. However when I see things like:
384:
3767:
3243:
3188:
3086:
3077:
2082:
2030:. I think this one is very apropos. Sure, it is mainly focused on articles, but the key point is that
1981:
1950:
1889:
1589:
1555:
893:
Katefan's poll, which she herself considers ridiculous, as it's about whether we like the rock band Rush
257:
202:
83:
In light of the fact that we were heading down a spiral to nowhere, I've reset the debate to look for a
3363:
Putting a message on a WikiProject page is not the same as spamming a score or more of user talk pages.
3119:
992:
3173:
1888:
would require the User Template: prefix), it would take POV userboxes out of the Template: namespace.
216:
Note that "My suggestion, for what it's worth..." was written before the refactoring and restart that
3959:
3939:
3881:
2641:
2068:
That's a valid point. However, it should be kept in mind that it is far from proven that user boxes
1692:
proposed policy page) for sheperding userboxes through a creation process would help address this. ++
1477:
1456:
1438:
1423:
1337:
1210:
1165:
983:
601:
Use of images that are being used outside of FU Wiki policy should be speedily deleted (eg templates)
1397:
1048:
Can you list some policies that it violates? Sorry, I am arriving to this discussion late, I guess.
683:
Babel boxes are relevant to the writing of Knowledge (XXG). English Knowledge (XXG) may be written
490:
192:
It should also be noted that some users consider the personal, individual aspects of a user page as
3274:
3248:
3176:
3149:
2208:
2034:. Using user boxes to push one's personal agenda seems very much against a core principle here. --
1978:
1049:
1012:
957:
887:
144:
3833:
3674:
set out this very point - categorisation should only be allowed for certain, specified areas (see
3220:
3028:
991:
There seems to be an unhealthy amount of boxes denouncing groups rather than supporting your own.
911:
It's obviously not just a fad. This "fad" has contributed to the loss of two Wikipedians already (
231:
3240:) contacts the following people listed as "Pro-life" between 0700 and 0702 on 20 December, 2005:
3231:
3206:
3194:
3140:
3113:
2697:
1411:
1191:
892:
525:
149:
3044:
651:
119:
posted, material that I really thought was a good starting point for articulating principles. ++
196:
of the community-building process, which in turn serves the goal of creating an encyclopedia. —
3912:
3840:
3624:
3585:
3566:
3531:
3495:
3494:
articles by one side or the other would be the death of neutrality and an end to consensus. --
3456:
3426:
3384:
3289:
3110:
3101:
3032:
2845:
2504:
2385:
1314:
1202:
and other problems would already eliminate egregious cases. There is nothing here requiring a
1108:
1035:
792:
555:
400:
2867:
2748:
2696:
mentions that over 40 people were contacted. So 9 of them voted keep — what did the rest do?
2611:
1805:
1798:
1667:
916:
88:
3748:
3700:
3689:
3368:
It has the same effect though, not taking into account the actual disruptiveness of spam. --
3197:
3167:
3161:
3137:
3071:
2918:
2077:
1945:
1912:
1840:
1584:
1550:
1300:
1001:
928:
842:
788:
465:
252:
226:
197:
163:
96:
3798:
2072:
interfering with encyclopedic activities. A better argument has been made that user boxes
2049:
2006:
1995:
1860:
1778:
1763:
1759:
1326:
547:
451:
3953:
3933:
3875:
3270:
3203:
3098:
3083:
3074:
3062:
3047:
2975:
Um, remember, I'm a newbie. (see my contributions: click on the c in my siggy, or run the
2729:
2148:
2114:
2060:
2035:
2010:
1920:
1903:
1865:
1786:
1781:
and a version of that page for Dummies unfamiliar with the programming lagnuage involved.
1729:
1642:
1626:
1575:
1524:
1503:
1453:
1435:
1420:
1334:
1259:
1207:
1181:
1162:
1157:
Scientologists and those "vehemently against" Scientologists to get along. Not that they
980:
758:
713:
663:
641:
609:
563:
222:
184:
3642:
to get rid of non-Knowledge (XXG)-relevant ones, won't the Babel boxes have to go too? --
3219:
The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life.
2875:
2297:
2293:
2186:
2026:
1570:
1533:
1516:
1199:
920:
655:
618:
484:
a particular belief, and the attakcer saw it) , instead of finding them on a category. -
427:
well for userbox templates. It would be nice to avoid speedy deletion in user space. --
112:
1325:
hadn't know there was controversy in this I didn't want to be involved in. My issue is
3775:
3770:, that's going to be a pretty good guide to their politics the majority of the time. --
3763:
3712:
3647:
3607:
3179:
3170:
3122:
2742:
MSK while you refactored helpfully, I think this point got lost from the policy points
2322:
2240:
2169:
1965:
1935:
1916:
1711:
1679:
882:
671:
593:
584:
338:
139:
3739:
3680:
456:
3860:
3806:
3699:
The Babel boxes also have linked categories. Why should a person be allowed to be in
3549:
arguing they all have categories attached but you very well know most of them don't.
3478:
3412:
3279:
3258:
3253:
3227:
3191:
3164:
3158:
3152:
3146:
3131:
3095:
3089:
2989:
2953:
2883:
2808:
2766:
2657:
2592:
2573:
2558:
2403:
2352:
2301:
2266:
2226:
2212:
2194:
1823:
1697:
1273:
1222:
1071:
866:
747:
626:
520:
388:
366:
239:
124:
2055:
Choice bits here: "Knowledge (XXG) is not a forum for unregulated free speech" and "
733:
Here is some information I think would make it easier for us to resolve this issue:
479:? This would stop those attacks that happen. The userboxes would still be listed at
3908:
3837:
3823:
3581:
3452:
3331:
Wikiprojects are bound by the neutrality policy and may not have closed membership.
3143:
3134:
3107:
3059:
3056:
2841:
1885:
1304:
912:
417:
221:
do better at moving comments here, IMHO. That aside I think I want to amplify what
1190:
info upon which to frame your arguments on such issues. If someone hacking at the
3338:
Knowledge (XXG) Categories certainly don't have closed membership either, though.
2384:
enabling all of us Bigendians t operate as a bloc. This is what userboxes do. --
3743:
3684:
3128:
3125:
3092:
3080:
3068:
3050:
2967:
2906:
2158:
1836:
1740:
1136:
1022:
997:
924:
838:
807:
776:
460:
428:
217:
159:
92:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2870:
doesn't mean ( POV vs. Opposing POV ) duke it out to see who can win, it means
2720:
Does the group created by a user box bring people together, or push them apart?
2692:
because they were contacted, but what the overall vote of those contacted was.
551:
3903:
3576:
3550:
3509:
3469:
3447:
3263:
3182:
3104:
3065:
2897:
2836:
2531:
2144:
2076:
are interfering with encyclopedic activities, but even that is questionable. —
1782:
1638:
1362:
1288:
923:. We need to work out if making userboxes with a POV falls into these bounds.
900:
853:
559:
408:
352:
320:
70:
3473:
simply because there are more members on that side will tend to promote more
2863:(in response to Ronline... but started a subsection to make editing easier)
3898:
3771:
3708:
3643:
3603:
3571:
3442:
3008:
Some concrete examples of belief and conviction-based userboxes being abused
2901:
2831:
1651:
690:
667:
503:
3420:
In response to Mistress Selina Kyle's point, I completely agree. I have a
1034:
That particular user box violates several policies and should be deleted.
3305:
do exactly the same: grouping Wikipedians together by interest, political
3802:
2985:
2949:
2879:
2804:
2762:
2653:
2588:
2399:
2348:
2262:
2222:
2190:
1819:
1693:
1491:
1415:
1272:" is setting out to offend, shock, or cause trouble, and is a bad thing.
1269:
1246:
1067:
862:
622:
235:
175:
120:
3926:
1119:
2128:
With respect to categories that user boxes are in, can we agree that
640:
Thanks for thr reference, I couldn't find it before I made the post --
1392:
1145:
742:. Let's get some hard facts on how userboxes affect Knowledge (XXG).
1061:
a POV is disallowed in userspace, has it?. Near as I can tell it is
314:
Protect all existing userboxes as long as this discussion continues
2007:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
1057:
It shows a POV. But I don't think it has been clearly shown that
775:, and that is only a small percentage of the templates we have.--
2945:
2936:
1884:. While that might be less than optimal (because then template
3309:, and also this is just a more conspicuous way of things that
948:
other than that, allow freedom within the normal wp policies.
158:
That's what this is now set up for. Brawl away, to quote you.
25:
2175:
In an edit summary just now on the project page (attached to
3602:
are your Babel boxes relevant to writing Knowledge (XXG)? --
1853:
NPOV has been getting brought up a lot in this discussion.
2300:
that says, "Userpages must be NPOV"? I didn't think so. -
1767:
1502:
some sub-topics for individual policy/guideline pages. --
1250:"? Where do we draw the line? Serious question, here. (
1161:
but, when you needlessly incite that tension it's silly.
2032:
The Knowledge (XXG) project, as a whole, is not a soapbox
1299:
Oh, you don't need userboxes to be offensive or POV. See
899:
Doesn't that just destroy the spirit of anyone can edit?
2547:
Knowledge (XXG):Policy on cordinated actions by factions
2176:
404:
2456:
for people that don't necessarily follow the religion)
1569:
I didn't phrase that very well. In general, I think
2292:Fair use images can't be used on userpages because
583:and policies on pretty boxes are beside the point.
2450:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild
830:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals
329:Both sides in the argument have agreed that there
1256:I made up; the specific example is not the point.
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Proposed policy on userboxes
2896:The theory is that Knowledge (XXG) is more of a
2587:( Moved MSK's "counterargument" to talk page ++
596:cuts to the crux of the matter. I think in that:
2443:WikiProjects do EXACTLY the same in some cases.
2001:... an indiscriminate collection of information
654:? This entire discussion inspire me to re-read
180:what is the fundamental purpose of a user page?
3213:Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion!
2718:So, I think one key thing to look at here is:
2296:specifically says so. Do you see anything in
1687:Agree. I strongly feel that userboxes cannot,
1176:If a user puts "Vehemently against blacks" on
558:had quit doing pending resolution of the RFC.
2321:Well I'm glad we could come to a conclusion.
574:Use of wikipedia for nonencyclopedic purposes
8:
3776:
3713:
3648:
3608:
3273:has removed an informative section from the
1857:concensus appears to be that user pages are
1349:on the scientology box, but not because I'm
1239:What about user boxes that say things like "
672:
1359:This user is against all brainwashing cults
2329:(quietly hums the Golden Girls theme song)
1754:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid using meta-templates
1357:. I suggested the box be edited to read:
1107:
3705:Category:Religious socialist Wikipedians
1241:This user is vehemently against abortion
3638:in the userboxes, but if the consensus
2345:Policies relevant to the userbox debate
1808:- many userboxes offend against WP:NPOV
1486:Policies relevant to the userbox debate
915:and someone else) and an ugly fight on
3383:to the vast majority of userboxes). --
2670:Yeah, done now - hope that's better --
1810:- NPOV is a concern for articles, not
1353:scientology, but because I don't like
773:Knowledge (XXG):Navigational templates
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2878:says it's against policy to do so. ++
1902:to fill one's user page with POV. --
7:
3327:Two counterpoints to your response:
2688:the percentage of voters that voted
2640:matching userboxes such as those in
835:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Userboxes/Ideas
740:correlation does not imply causation
477:not put POV userboxes in categories
3468:Knowledge (XXG) is more akin to a
3017:and then spamming the talk pages.
2343:I tried a bit of a refactor here:
1996:What Knowledge (XXG) is and is not
1770:articles as well as to userboxes.
1536:with regard to this discussion is
1532:I think the most important bit of
738:Knowledge (XXG)'s fund drive, but
24:
2944:) This is a difficult concept to
2454:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Islam
2050:Knowledge (XXG) is not an anarchy
481:Knowledge (XXG):Userboxes/Beliefs
106:Begin from fundamental principles
3929:has been nominated for deletion.
3902:
3897:
3738:
3679:
3575:
3570:
3446:
3441:
2835:
2830:
2738:Please be careful in refactoring
2143:newbies, in other areas we not.
2027:Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox
1245:This user is vehemently against
1143:This user is vehemently against
1135:
1130:
1117:This user is vehemently against
1102:
729:Some hard facts would be helpful
485:
455:
450:userboxes, and their listing at
29:
3666:Surely we agree that it is the
3567:Romania under Nicolae Ceauşescu
2779:Didn't mean to delete it, sorry
2570:law of unintended consequences
2365:Basically a user conduct issue
1391:Second, to use the oft-quoted
943:Comment: no regulation, please
710:are fluent in another language
1:
3530:just another Livejournal. --
3217:Category:Pro-life celebrities
1859:explictly allowed to contain
1414:. If I happen to be editing
3857:Category:Atheist Wikipedians
2859:Vote stacking as an argument
2537:00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
1985:06:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
1655:20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1645:23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
1481:14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
1471:14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
1460:21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
1214:18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1204:new, userbox-specific policy
972:{{User against scientology}}
721:16:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
74:20:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
3967:21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3947:20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3916:06:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3889:19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
3864:16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3847:20:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
3827:15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3814:23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3782:15:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3754:14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3719:14:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3695:13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3654:13:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3632:13:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3614:13:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3589:00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3554:13:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3539:13:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3518:You misquote me slightly.
3513:13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3503:13:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3482:14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3460:11:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3434:10:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3416:09:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3406:09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3392:08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3377:09:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3355:09:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3322:08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3297:08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2971:04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
2961:03:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
2922:17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
2891:23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2849:11:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2816:07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2794:07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2774:07:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2733:07:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2701:21:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2679:07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2665:07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2600:07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2577:20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2562:09:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2513:16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2479:07:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2430:07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2411:07:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2393:07:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2378:06:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2360:05:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2326:07:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2305:07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2274:07:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2244:06:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2234:05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2216:05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2202:04:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2162:22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2151:17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2118:07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2092:03:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
2064:21:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2039:07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2014:07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1969:20:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1960:18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1939:03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1926:11:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1907:03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1893:23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1869:07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1845:03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1831:00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1789:17:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1733:00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1717:04:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1705:04:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1683:03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1630:07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1599:03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1579:02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1574:I was trying to get at. --
1565:20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1528:07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1507:07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1446:16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1427:14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1401:06:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1383:16:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
1368:15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1341:04:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1317:23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1294:17:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1277:17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
1263:21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1235:16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1226:16:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1185:23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1169:16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1089:15:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1079:00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1053:00:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
1044:23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
1026:23:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
1016:22:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
1006:21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
987:21:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
961:20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
933:21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
907:19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
896:11:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
874:20:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
857:11:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
847:10:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
811:09:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
797:21:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
780:21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
766:20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
751:20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
700:21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
678:12:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
645:17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
634:05:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
613:20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
588:13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
566:20:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
536:03:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
513:21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
496:16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
471:17:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
432:13:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
421:13:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
412:10:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
392:10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
370:10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
356:10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
342:10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
324:09:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
309:15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
284:15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
267:04:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
247:04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
212:04:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
188:03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
168:08:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
154:07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
132:06:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
101:06:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
3983:
2935:posts along the lines of "
2157:with a userbox. Ever. --
2111:Respect other contributors
1991:Knowledge (XXG) is not ...
3870:out bands of POV pushers
3186:User:Speculative catholic
3156:User:Christopher Erickson
2931:that made them by name).
2549:or something like that.
1879:User Template:someuserbox
706:are not fluent in English
385:Knowledge (XXG):Userboxes
150:Katefan's ridiculous poll
3307:or religious affiliation
2124:Categories of User Boxes
2074:with embedded categories
852:for deletion again)....
3758:Language boxes are not
3544:You are defending your
3054:User:Sebastian Prospero
2105:Policies and guidelines
1333:long run we will see.
3834:Knowledge (XXG):Voting
3422:Template:user advogato
3201:User:Hégésippe Cormier
1252:Please note these are
117:User:TantalumTelluride
3244:User:Musical Linguist
3189:User:Musical Linguist
3117:User:Hollow Wilerding
3087:User:JohnAlbertRigali
3078:User:Klemen Kocjancic
1110:File:Naziswastika.png
442:I'm fairly sure that
42:of past discussions.
3401:Mistress Selina Kyle
3372:Mistress Selina Kyle
3350:Mistress Selina Kyle
3317:Mistress Selina Kyle
2789:Mistress Selina Kyle
2674:Mistress Selina Kyle
2642:Category:Wikipedians
2474:Mistress Selina Kyle
1749:Meta Template policy
1517:User page guidelines
1512:User page guidelines
337:need to be deleted.
3491:any business at all
3275:Contraceptive patch
3249:User:Thomas Aquinas
3177:User:Thomas Aquinas
3150:User:Anti-Anonymex2
2209:Hellenic polytheism
1744:2006-01-06 10:36:22
1616:No personal attacks
1611:No personal attacks
789:m:Instruction creep
3672:policy proposal #4
3207:User:Danthemankhan
3195:User:Danthemankhan
3114:User:Canadian Mike
2424:Christopher Parham
2372:Christopher Parham
1468:Twisturbed Tachyon
1443:Twisturbed Tachyon
1412:Rastafari movement
1380:Twisturbed Tachyon
1192:Coretta Scott King
302:ambition makes you
277:ambition makes you
3964:
3944:
3886:
3752:
3693:
3668:linked categories
3524:every single time
3344:more inconvenient
3120:User:Bryan Nguyen
3111:User:Yo Mama 5000
3102:User:EliasAlucard
2633:Counter-argument:
2605:Tony added this:
2528:Assume Good Faith
2339:Bit of a refactor
2090:
1958:
1715:
1597:
1563:
1257:
1153:
1152:
1127:
1126:
993:Template:User GWB
895:
556:User:Kelly Martin
554:taking over what
469:
401:User:Tony Sidaway
387:prevents this. -
307:
282:
265:
251:Well said, Lar. —
210:
152:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3974:
3963:
3960:
3956:
3943:
3940:
3936:
3906:
3901:
3885:
3882:
3878:
3778:
3746:
3742:
3715:
3701:Category:User en
3687:
3683:
3650:
3610:
3579:
3574:
3450:
3445:
3402:
3373:
3351:
3318:
3198:User:Kinneyboy90
3174:User:WikiSceptic
3168:User:Shanedidona
3162:User:GreatGatsby
3138:User:Acetic Acid
3072:User:Merovingian
2912:2024–09–21 00:04
2909:
2839:
2834:
2790:
2675:
2534:
2475:
2221:controversial.++
2080:
1948:
1913:depleted uranium
1883:
1877:
1743:
1714:
1668:Copyright policy
1663:Copyright policy
1623:group of persons
1587:
1553:
1365:
1311:
1308:
1301:User:Deeceevoice
1291:
1251:
1139:
1131:
1113:
1111:
1103:
974:
973:
891:
763:
718:
674:
529:
523:
489:
463:
459:
305:look pretty ugly
300:
280:look pretty ugly
275:
255:
227:user:Josiah Rowe
200:
148:
33:
32:
26:
3982:
3981:
3977:
3976:
3975:
3973:
3972:
3971:
3961:
3954:
3941:
3934:
3883:
3876:
3477:, not less. --
3400:
3371:
3349:
3316:
3204:User:EvKnight13
3099:User:Eoghanacht
3084:User:Jrquinlisk
3075:User:Lacrimosus
3063:User:PaulHanson
3048:User:Burwellian
3010:
2968:Charles Stewart
2905:
2861:
2788:
2740:
2708:
2673:
2585:
2532:
2473:
2367:
2341:
2173:
2126:
2102:
2047:
2022:
2003:
1993:
1881:
1875:
1796:
1751:
1739:
1665:
1613:
1514:
1488:
1363:
1309:
1306:
1289:
1243:"? How about "
1232:Yeltensic42.618
1196:existing policy
1182:Septentrionalis
1154:
1128:
1109:
1086:Yeltensic42.618
971:
970:
945:
905:
821:
759:
731:
714:
698:
650:What about the
621:, I believe. ++
576:
533:
527:
521:
511:
316:
298:Yeltensic42.618
273:Yeltensic42.618
223:User:DragonHawk
108:
81:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3980:
3978:
3970:
3969:
3949:
3918:
3892:
3891:
3852:
3851:
3850:
3849:
3819:
3818:
3817:
3816:
3791:
3790:
3789:
3788:
3787:
3786:
3785:
3784:
3730:
3729:
3728:
3727:
3726:
3725:
3724:
3723:
3722:
3721:
3657:
3656:
3621:
3619:
3618:
3617:
3616:
3596:
3595:
3594:
3593:
3592:
3591:
3557:
3556:
3516:
3515:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3463:
3462:
3409:
3408:
3380:
3379:
3365:
3364:
3360:
3359:
3358:
3357:
3339:
3333:
3332:
3325:
3324:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3266:
3261:
3256:
3251:
3246:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3209:
3180:User:TheQuaker
3171:User:Sherurcij
3123:User:Brisvegas
3009:
3006:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2982:webcomics RfAr
2913:
2860:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2797:
2796:
2781:
2780:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2739:
2736:
2707:
2704:
2682:
2681:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2584:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2446:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2366:
2363:
2340:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2204:
2172:
2170:User:Eightball
2166:
2165:
2164:
2140:
2139:
2136:
2133:
2125:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2101:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2046:
2045:... an anarchy
2043:
2042:
2041:
2021:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2002:
1999:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1917:global warming
1871:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1795:
1792:
1750:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1735:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1664:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1647:
1635:
1612:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1583:That's fair. —
1546:
1545:
1544:
1513:
1510:
1487:
1484:
1463:
1462:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1404:
1403:
1389:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1330:
1297:
1296:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1270:killing babies
1247:killing babies
1218:
1217:
1216:
1208:Keith D. Tyler
1187:
1151:
1150:
1141:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1115:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1050:Brighterorange
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1013:Brighterorange
968:
967:
958:Brighterorange
944:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
903:
897:
878:
877:
876:
820:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
800:
799:
783:
782:
754:
753:
743:
730:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
694:
648:
647:
637:
636:
615:
606:
602:
598:
597:
575:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
531:
516:
515:
507:
475:Can't we just
435:
434:
397:
396:
395:
394:
373:
372:
361:
360:
359:
358:
345:
344:
315:
312:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
269:
172:
171:
170:
107:
104:
80:
77:
66:
65:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3979:
3968:
3965:
3957:
3950:
3948:
3945:
3937:
3930:
3928:
3922:
3919:
3917:
3914:
3911:
3910:
3905:
3900:
3894:
3893:
3890:
3887:
3879:
3873:
3868:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3862:
3858:
3848:
3845:
3842:
3839:
3835:
3830:
3829:
3828:
3825:
3821:
3820:
3815:
3812:
3808:
3804:
3800:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3792:
3783:
3779:
3773:
3769:
3765:
3761:
3757:
3756:
3755:
3750:
3745:
3741:
3736:
3735:
3734:
3733:
3732:
3731:
3720:
3716:
3710:
3706:
3702:
3698:
3697:
3696:
3691:
3686:
3682:
3677:
3673:
3669:
3665:
3664:
3663:
3662:
3661:
3660:
3659:
3658:
3655:
3651:
3645:
3641:
3636:
3635:
3634:
3633:
3630:
3626:
3615:
3611:
3605:
3600:
3599:
3598:
3597:
3590:
3587:
3584:
3583:
3578:
3573:
3568:
3563:
3562:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3558:
3555:
3552:
3547:
3543:
3542:
3541:
3540:
3537:
3533:
3529:
3525:
3521:
3514:
3511:
3507:
3506:
3505:
3504:
3501:
3497:
3492:
3483:
3480:
3476:
3475:systemic bias
3471:
3467:
3466:
3465:
3464:
3461:
3458:
3455:
3454:
3449:
3444:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3432:
3428:
3423:
3418:
3417:
3414:
3407:
3404:
3403:
3396:
3395:
3394:
3393:
3390:
3386:
3378:
3375:
3374:
3367:
3366:
3362:
3361:
3356:
3353:
3352:
3345:
3340:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3334:
3330:
3329:
3328:
3323:
3320:
3319:
3312:
3308:
3304:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3298:
3295:
3291:
3282:
3281:
3276:
3272:
3268:The wording:
3267:
3265:
3262:
3260:
3259:User:Elliskev
3257:
3255:
3254:User:Dominick
3252:
3250:
3247:
3245:
3242:
3241:
3239:
3236:
3233:
3229:
3226:
3222:
3218:
3214:
3211:The wording:
3210:
3208:
3205:
3202:
3199:
3196:
3193:
3192:User:Jack Cox
3190:
3187:
3184:
3181:
3178:
3175:
3172:
3169:
3166:
3165:User:Ironbrew
3163:
3160:
3159:User:Elliskev
3157:
3154:
3153:User:Dominick
3151:
3148:
3147:User:Chooserr
3145:
3142:
3139:
3136:
3133:
3132:User:Army1987
3130:
3127:
3124:
3121:
3118:
3115:
3112:
3109:
3106:
3103:
3100:
3097:
3096:User:Getcrunk
3094:
3091:
3090:User:Gentgeen
3088:
3085:
3082:
3079:
3076:
3073:
3070:
3067:
3064:
3061:
3058:
3055:
3052:
3049:
3046:
3043:
3042:
3040:
3037:
3034:
3030:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3021:
3018:
3014:
3007:
2995:
2991:
2987:
2983:
2978:
2974:
2973:
2972:
2969:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2938:
2934:
2929:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2920:
2915:
2914:
2911:
2908:
2903:
2899:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2877:
2873:
2869:
2864:
2858:
2850:
2847:
2844:
2843:
2838:
2833:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2817:
2814:
2810:
2806:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2795:
2792:
2791:
2783:
2782:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2772:
2768:
2764:
2754:
2750:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2737:
2735:
2734:
2731:
2726:
2722:
2721:
2716:
2712:
2705:
2703:
2702:
2699:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2680:
2677:
2676:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2643:
2639:
2634:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:MSK replied:
2617:
2613:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2603:
2601:
2598:
2594:
2590:
2582:
2578:
2575:
2571:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2560:
2554:
2550:
2548:
2538:
2535:
2529:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2480:
2477:
2476:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2455:
2451:
2448:For example,
2447:
2444:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2431:
2428:
2425:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2412:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2391:
2387:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2376:
2373:
2364:
2362:
2361:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2338:
2330:
2327:
2324:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2306:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2275:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2245:
2242:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2214:
2210:
2205:
2203:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2178:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2160:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2149:
2146:
2137:
2134:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2123:
2119:
2116:
2112:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2099:
2093:
2088:
2084:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2044:
2040:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2023:
2020:... a soapbox
2019:
2015:
2012:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1998:
1997:
1990:
1986:
1983:
1980:
1976:
1970:
1967:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1956:
1952:
1947:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1937:
1933:
1927:
1924:
1923:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1905:
1901:
1900:carte blanche
1896:
1895:
1894:
1891:
1890:Robert Paveza
1887:
1880:
1872:
1870:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1856:
1852:
1846:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1816:
1815:
1813:
1809:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1793:
1791:
1790:
1787:
1784:
1780:
1774:
1771:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1758:According to
1756:
1755:
1748:
1742:
1736:
1734:
1731:
1727:
1724:
1718:
1713:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1690:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1681:
1677:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1662:
1656:
1653:
1648:
1646:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1610:
1600:
1595:
1591:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1577:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1557:
1552:
1547:
1542:
1541:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1511:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1493:
1490:I agree with
1485:
1483:
1482:
1479:
1473:
1472:
1469:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1417:
1413:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1402:
1399:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1369:
1366:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1331:
1328:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1315:
1313:
1312:
1302:
1295:
1292:
1286:
1278:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1255:
1249:
1248:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1148:
1147:
1142:
1140:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1114:
1112:
1105:
1104:
1090:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1003:
999:
994:
990:
989:
988:
985:
982:
977:
976:
975:
965:
964:
963:
962:
959:
955:
949:
942:
934:
931:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
909:
908:
902:
898:
894:
890:
889:
885:
884:
879:
875:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
858:
855:
850:
849:
848:
845:
844:
840:
836:
831:
827:
826:
825:
818:
812:
809:
804:
803:
802:
801:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
781:
778:
774:
770:
769:
768:
767:
764:
762:
752:
749:
744:
741:
736:
735:
734:
728:
722:
719:
717:
711:
708:or 2) if you
707:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
692:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
675:
669:
665:
661:
660:Lower Sorbian
657:
653:
646:
643:
639:
638:
635:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
614:
611:
607:
603:
600:
599:
595:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
573:
567:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
537:
534:
526:
524:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
505:
499:
498:
497:
494:
493:
488:
482:
478:
474:
473:
472:
467:
462:
458:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
430:
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
414:
413:
410:
406:
402:
393:
390:
386:
381:
378:Oh, and even
377:
376:
375:
374:
371:
368:
363:
362:
357:
354:
349:
348:
347:
346:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
313:
311:
310:
306:
303:
299:
285:
281:
278:
274:
270:
268:
263:
259:
254:
250:
249:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
228:
224:
219:
215:
214:
213:
208:
204:
199:
195:
191:
190:
189:
186:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
165:
161:
157:
156:
155:
151:
147:
146:
142:
141:
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
105:
103:
102:
99:
98:
94:
90:
86:
78:
76:
75:
72:
64:
63:
59:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3924:
3920:
3907:
3874:userboxes.--
3871:
3853:
3768:Ulster Scots
3759:
3667:
3639:
3625:Tony Sidaway
3620:
3580:
3545:
3532:Tony Sidaway
3527:
3523:
3519:
3517:
3496:Tony Sidaway
3490:
3488:
3451:
3427:Tony Sidaway
3419:
3410:
3398:
3385:Tony Sidaway
3381:
3369:
3347:
3343:
3326:
3314:
3310:
3303:WikiProjects
3290:Tony Sidaway
3287:
3269:
3234:
3212:
3144:User:Jakes18
3135:User:Str1977
3108:User:Dcgomez
3060:User:Psy guy
3057:User:Tdxiang
3035:
3022:
3019:
3015:
3011:
2977:edit counter
2941:
2932:
2927:
2919:CJ Marsicano
2871:
2865:
2862:
2840:
2786:
2760:
2741:
2727:
2723:
2719:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2689:
2685:
2683:
2671:
2651:
2637:
2632:
2623:
2604:
2586:
2555:
2551:
2546:
2543:
2505:Kelly Martin
2500:
2496:
2471:
2442:
2386:Tony Sidaway
2368:
2344:
2342:
2328:
2174:
2141:
2127:
2110:
2103:
2100:Key policies
2073:
2069:
2056:
2048:
2031:
2025:
1994:
1921:
1899:
1886:transclusion
1858:
1854:
1839:
1804:
1797:
1775:
1772:
1757:
1752:
1725:
1688:
1675:
1666:
1622:
1614:
1515:
1499:
1496:
1489:
1474:
1464:
1433:
1376:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1305:
1298:
1253:
1244:
1240:
1203:
1195:
1177:
1158:
1155:
1144:
1134:
1118:
1106:
1062:
1058:
1036:Kelly Martin
1000:
969:
953:
950:
946:
927:
921:five pillars
886:
881:
841:
822:
793:Blu Aardvark
760:
755:
732:
715:
709:
705:
689:
684:
649:
580:
577:
552:more players
502:
491:
476:
447:
443:
415:
405:deletion log
398:
379:
334:
330:
317:
294:
193:
179:
162:
143:
138:
109:
95:
84:
82:
67:
61:
55:
43:
37:
3760:necessarily
3141:User:Sawran
3129:User:Victor
3126:User:Avalon
3093:User:GVOLTT
3081:User:Kakero
3069:User:Mred64
3051:User:Nainfa
2168:Comment by
2078:Josiah Rowe
1946:Josiah Rowe
1799:NPOV policy
1794:NPOV policy
1730:David Ruben
1585:Josiah Rowe
1551:Josiah Rowe
1329:. Oh vell.
819:A third way
652:Babel boxes
492:«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»
448:templatised
253:Josiah Rowe
218:user:Harro5
198:Josiah Rowe
79:Fresh start
36:This is an
3955:Birgitte§β
3935:Birgitte§β
3877:Birgitte§β
3801:. IMHO. ++
3470:sociocracy
3271:Sean Black
3264:User:*drew
3183:User:Sbwii
3105:User:*drew
3066:User:Patsw
3045:User:Tobit
2898:sociocracy
2749:Neutrality
2730:DragonHawk
2612:Neutrality
2145:User:AlMac
2115:DragonHawk
2061:DragonHawk
2036:DragonHawk
2011:DragonHawk
1904:DragonHawk
1866:DragonHawk
1812:User pages
1783:User:AlMac
1639:User:AlMac
1627:DragonHawk
1576:DragonHawk
1525:DragonHawk
1504:DragonHawk
1478:Equalpants
1355:Anti-boxen
1260:DragonHawk
791:either. --
761:Eoghanacht
716:Eoghanacht
642:Censorwolf
610:Censorwolf
560:User:AlMac
339:Rob Church
185:DragonHawk
85:discussion
69:userboxes.
3925:Be aware
2902:democracy
2753:Consensus
2706:Community
2694:this page
2616:Consensus
2499:, not of
2323:Eightball
2241:Eightball
2177:this edit
1982:(tell me)
1966:Eightball
1936:Eightball
1680:Eightball
1178:their own
904:ID:540053
691:Cyde Weys
617:which is
594:WAS 4.250
585:WAS 4.250
581:somewhere
504:Cyde Weys
232:WP:BJAODN
62:Archive 1
3861:Lord Bob
3703:but not
3676:proposal
3565:much of
3546:personal
3479:Interiot
3413:Pfafrich
3280:Chooserr
3238:contribs
3228:Chooserr
3039:contribs
2583:refactor
2574:Endomion
2559:Pfafrich
2497:interest
2302:AdelaMae
2213:AdelaMae
2087:contribs
1955:contribs
1922:James S.
1855:Previous
1689:must not
1594:contribs
1560:contribs
1497:will add
1492:User:Lar
1274:Lord Bob
1254:examples
1223:Lord Bob
1159:couldn't
748:AdelaMae
522:xaosflux
389:AdelaMae
367:AdelaMae
262:contribs
207:contribs
176:User:Lar
174:I think
3927:Example
3909:Ronline
3872:without
3824:Mareino
3582:Ronline
3453:Ronline
3311:already
3029:Pitchka
2900:than a
2868:WP:NPOV
2842:Ronline
2638:without
1861:opinion
1806:WP:NPOV
1650:view.--
917:WP:RFAR
913:Firebug
444:general
418:Kaldari
39:archive
3799:WP:AGF
2942:delete
2907:Daelin
2698:squell
2501:belief
2427:(talk)
2375:(talk)
2159:Dschor
1979:Goldie
1779:WP:AUM
1764:WP:AMT
1760:WP:AUM
1741:Daelin
1398:Daniel
1393:SCOTUS
1347:delete
1146:Blacks
1059:having
1023:Dschor
954:really
808:Fenice
777:Fenice
664:Monkey
548:WP:AIM
452:WP:UBX
429:Dschor
399:It is
3764:Irish
3744:Deano
3685:Deano
3551:Larix
3510:Larix
3221:Dwain
2876:WP:UP
2533:TCorp
2298:WP:UP
2294:WP:UP
2187:WP:UP
1837:Harro
1726:Agree
1652:Chris
1571:WP:UP
1534:WP:UP
1500:added
1416:Donsö
1364:TCorp
1290:TCorp
1200:WP:PA
998:Harro
925:Harro
888:Welch
854:Larix
839:Harro
656:WP:UP
619:WP:UP
461:Deano
409:Larix
353:Larix
321:Larix
160:Harro
145:Welch
115:that
113:WP:VP
93:Harro
71:Osbus
16:<
3962:Talk
3942:Talk
3884:Talk
3772:Angr
3749:Talk
3709:Angr
3707:? --
3690:Talk
3644:Angr
3629:Talk
3604:Angr
3536:Talk
3500:Talk
3431:Talk
3389:Talk
3294:Talk
3232:talk
3033:talk
2946:grok
2937:OMFG
2933:Keep
2928:keep
2872:NPOV
2751:and
2690:Keep
2614:and
2509:talk
2390:Talk
2083:talk
1951:talk
1762:and
1712:Zach
1625:. --
1590:talk
1556:talk
1538:this
1454:gren
1436:gren
1434:Ok,
1421:gren
1335:gren
1327:here
1310:KMan
1303:. —
1258:) --
1206:. -
1163:gren
1120:Jews
1040:talk
981:gren
883:Phil
696:vote
668:Angr
509:vote
466:Talk
258:talk
225:and
203:talk
194:part
140:Phil
89:dick
3838:MDD
3836:. ~
3803:Lar
3777:tɔk
3766:or
3714:tɔk
3678:.
3649:tɔk
3609:tɔk
2986:Lar
2950:Lar
2880:Lar
2805:Lar
2763:Lar
2686:not
2654:Lar
2589:Lar
2572:.
2400:Lar
2349:Lar
2263:Lar
2223:Lar
2191:Lar
2070:are
1820:Lar
1694:Lar
1676:not
1457:グレン
1439:グレン
1424:グレン
1351:for
1338:グレン
1307:The
1198:on
1166:グレン
1068:Lar
1063:not
984:グレン
901:Ian
863:Lar
795:|
673:tɔk
623:Lar
605:it.
532:CVU
403:.
331:are
236:Lar
121:Lar
3958:ʈ
3938:ʈ
3880:ʈ
3844:96
3841:46
3805::
3780:)
3717:)
3652:)
3640:is
3612:)
3528:is
3288:--
2988::
2952::
2917:--
2910:@
2882::
2807::
2785:--
2765::
2728:--
2656::
2602:)
2591::
2557:--
2530:-
2511:)
2470:--
2402::
2351::
2265::
2225::
2193::
2085:•
1953:•
1882:}}
1876:{{
1822::
1814:.
1768:WP
1696::
1592:•
1558:•
1540::
1523:--
1361:.
1149:.
1123:.
1070::
1042:)
865::
685:in
676:)
625::
501:--
407:.
380:if
335:do
260:•
238::
205:•
123::
3913:✉
3811:c
3809:/
3807:t
3774:(
3751:)
3747:(
3711:(
3692:)
3688:(
3646:(
3627:|
3606:(
3586:✉
3534:|
3498:|
3457:✉
3429:|
3387:|
3292:|
3235:·
3230:(
3036:·
3031:(
2994:c
2992:/
2990:t
2958:c
2956:/
2954:t
2888:c
2886:/
2884:t
2846:✉
2813:c
2811:/
2809:t
2771:c
2769:/
2767:t
2662:c
2660:/
2658:t
2644:.
2597:c
2595:/
2593:t
2507:(
2408:c
2406:/
2404:t
2388:|
2357:c
2355:/
2353:t
2271:c
2269:/
2267:t
2231:c
2229:/
2227:t
2199:c
2197:/
2195:t
2147:|
2089:)
2081:(
1957:)
1949:(
1944:—
1841:5
1828:c
1826:/
1824:t
1785:|
1702:c
1700:/
1698:t
1641:|
1596:)
1588:(
1562:)
1554:(
1549:—
1211:¶
1076:c
1074:/
1072:t
1038:(
1002:5
929:5
871:c
869:/
867:t
843:5
833:(
670:(
631:c
629:/
627:t
562:|
528:/
468:)
464:(
264:)
256:(
244:c
242:/
240:t
209:)
201:(
164:5
129:c
127:/
125:t
97:5
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.