On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
How does this differ from the policy forbidding disruptive behavior? Doesn't "divisive and infammatory" constitute a subset of "disruptive"?
Is "disruptive" behaviour banned? It shouldn't be. Upgrading MediaWiki could be disruptive. An AfD of a popular article is disruptive. Banning userboxes would be disruptive :)
Rather, unnecessarily or unbeneficially disruptive behaviour should be discouraged, and not all heated debates fall into those categories. A passionate debate about a near-featured-article could be quite beneficial, for example.
However, divisive and inflammatory behaviour is generally disruptive without having any benefits to the Wikipedia project.
Steve
I have not been able to discern a difference between the disruptive and inflammatory causal mechanism of the categorisation or transclusion of templates onto user pages, and the fact that user boxes express POV's of users.
Divisive and inflammatory implies the type of effect that votestacking has. It also describes the current outcry over the userbox deletion according to the T1 class of deletions, perhaps ironically the cause and the effect are based in the same action to delete.
I can easily imagine a status quo where categories are banned from userboxes and transclusion is replaced with subst: all userboxes without deleting the source. The subst and delete opinion of many "experienced" (and therefore more worthy to make consensus decisions in cabal type atmospheres) editors seems to be the cause of more divisive and inflammatory behaviour than if they had waited for a so called "wikipedia consensus" to appear.
Peter