--- Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote: That's the main argument. The other argument is that Jimbo is using proxies to do his work, which would otherwise make him a target of criticism. Not that he isn't a target already, but it seems he wants to redirect the criticism onto others. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Philip Welch wrote: I want people to ask slowly and thoughtfully with deep respect for others, even others with whom they disagree. As far as I can tell, there is a strong consensus that having various sorts of advocacy userboxes is problematic, especially when they are promoted in the Wikipedia namespace as if they are a normal and proper part of Wikipedia culture. The question is: how do we transition to a better state of affairs while respecting people's legitimate concerns about individuality and so on? I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as activists for a particular POV. I think users should realize that having that sort of cruft on their userpage will quite rightly diminish other people's respect for you and your work. But, whatever, if people want to do it, I see no reason to get absolutely draconian about it. However. The current situation with these things being in the main Template namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Wikipedia namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture. They are attracting the wrong sort of people, and giving newcomers the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian. That's why they need to go. Not to censor people's self-expression, but to make it clear that _as a whole_ the community considers these things to be divisive and inappropriate. -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

Interesting. That seems like a very reasonable compromise. Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth) Jesse W wrote:

On 2/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: No there isn't. More correctly no one seems to be sure how to define advocacy exactly so any possible consensus would be a moot point It someone admits a POV it makes it much harder for them to push that POV. I fail to see a problem with this I haven't really seen it. Most of the problem users I've run into lately are the same type I was running into over a year ago. Most new users settle down and edit quietly away. There will always be a few who cause problems. The community doesn't. Bits of it do but at the last count bits of the community considered the following to be divisive and inappropriate: Userboxes Deleting user boxes IRC You Me [[Brian Peppers]] [[Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg]] [[WP:CVU]] I think getting rid of that lot would be a mistake -- geni

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote: I think if I listen to the voice of the community, I do exactly what I am doing. The community overwhelmingly agrees that these things are a problem, and there is not yet clear consensus on what to do about it. --Jimbo

Dude, I don't know what he's doing behind the scenes, but I can imagine that he's being 'The Boss'. That, however, doesn't change anything in my argument. How much do you know, tho? I think that as the founder of Wiki, he should have worked A LOT more on articles. I read that he made somewhere below 200 edits on articles, and this is since 2001. That would make it what? About 40 edits in 5 years? Less than four edits per month? Sorry, but my opinion is that he should be a role-model for other editors when it comes to editing. This, however, is another debate. I hope you didn't try to weaken my argument by changing the subject and making me look naive. Even if I were naive, the argument stands. --- charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote You have this so wrong. Even if his position were like an editor of a newspaper - and in a sense it has become more complex than that, recently - there would be no need to write it himself. Charles

On 2/20/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: You can use gmail filters to do this, though you can only have 20 of them: https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=6579&query=filter&… Angela.

If you have something to say to me, just do so. Don't try to provoke me with these pitty insults. --- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

I'm starting to skip your stuff too. You need to become familiar with Wikipedia and adopt an attitude of cooperative problem solving to participate effectively. Fred On Feb 20, 2006, at 1:56 AM, charles matthews wrote:

While I don't agree with everything you're saying or the way you're saying it, you make one interesting point: if Jimbo just came right out now and said "You are only allowed to have this sort of userbox, and you are only allowed to have x amount of them", this userbox fiasco would come to an end: admins can go around deleting them and all the userbox defenders would have nothing (concrete) to say about it. Conversely, if Jimbo said "all userboxes are fine", the userbox defenders are free to keep their userboxes, the admins will know not to delete anything, and we'll all be fine. I'm sure that part of the reason he hasn't is because he doesn't know what the right solution is, but the longer he waits, the longer this whole userbox fiasco's going to play out. But signs are really beginning to point to the fact that Jimbo will need to make an official decree about this whole mess. I think Jimbo came pretty close to expressing his wishes with the Template CSD, but there will likely come a time when we need him to make a stronger and more official statement on Wikipedia. On 2/20/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

On 2/20/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: Of course we operate by consensus. I'd have it no other way. However, even assuming that we reach consensus after months of discussion, it will likely take no less than a direct statement from Jimbo to stop any further feudin' and fussin'. There will always be people on the extreme ends of the userbox arguments, and those folks are very unlikely to change their minds regardless of any consensus. How they act (and how we respond) depends on how much "muscle" is behind any userbox decrees. I'd argue that there is nothing more "muscular" than a decree by Jimbo. Uh-oh. We're going to see a photoshopped picture of Jimbo on Arnold's body in [[User:Jimbo Wales/Funny pictures]], aren't we?

On 2/20/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think that this is becoming the only viable solution. However, the userboxen supporters are also the loudest in shouting "Cabal, Cabal!!", and hearkening for the ruin of Jimbo. Just today did I see a userbox comparing him to something out of 1984. In short, they deny everything that Jimbo does for the good of Wikipedia. These users greatly lose fact of basic Wikipedia principles: that we are here to build an encyclopedia, that you don't have a right to edit, and don't have an automatic right to "free speech". Truly, we have a sort of Wiki-"generation gap." I don't see an end to these issues any time soon. -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake

On 2/20/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote: There seems to have been a rash of those in the past few days - [[User:The Ungovernable Force/manifesto]] is even more extreme - combined with a number of "Userbox Insurgency"-type userboxes. The issue seems to have become less a question of the userboxes themselves and more one of "sticking it to The Man" (in this case, Jimbo). Kirill Lokshin

"Ben Emmel" wrote There is no cabal <yawn>. But I've seen nothing more likely to create one <shrug>. Us-and-themifying admin actions, in particular. Charles

On 2/20/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, but even with disagreement, such a decree would have the authority behind it. A great many people disagreed with Jimbo's actions in the pedophile userbox wheel war, but his actions still carried the weight of his ultimate authority of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether people agreed with his actions or sentiment, the matter was dealt with very quickly.

On 2/20/06, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: Sorry, Jimbo, I meant that the matter was dealt with quickly AFTER you performed your actions. As for the people who disagreed with your actions, I remember there being many people complaining long and loud about it. My point was, regardless of this, things were dealt with quickly. Overall, I approved of your actions (I think I probably approved a little too vigorously on a few talk pages) and I think I'm one of the folks who was hoping for QUICKER action ;-). You don't exercise your authority often, but it is there for you to use if needed. My point is that I think you'll need to exercise it again in the future w.r.t. the userbox issue.

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote: Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere. It's not like Jimbo knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing this. (If you're not referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't know.) John

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote: That is a polemical userbox (at least, that's what is argued by a number of admins; I don't count myself as one of them, but I don't care whether these userboxes stay or go). Ask Kelly. Don't go behind her back to the mailing list. If she blocks you too, then come here. John

Jimmy Wales wrote: Noisy harmony can often be like a brass band that has more brass than band. :-) Ec

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:09:12 -0800 (PST), you wrote: You've missed the point. On usenet you silently plonk trolls because it's attention they crave. On Wikipedia you let people know they are not doing themselves any favours, because you want people to contribute and be productive members of the community. The longer I am around Wikipedia the more I find myself discarding replies unsubmitted, because escalation is not the way to go. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:28:12 +0100, you wrote: Up to a point, Lord Copper. *I* can hear the plonk as they land in the bitbucket, but *they* can't ;-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 2/21/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yeah, it's an abbreviation for "You're a troll, I am now killfiling you." :-)

On 2/21/06, Carl Fûrstenberg &lt;azatoth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You are aware, aren't you, that Jimbo at 18:01 UTC yesterday placed the following notice at the top of [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs]]: "It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs

On 2/21/06, Death Phoenix &lt;originaldeathphoenix(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Not really. Declaring {{user childless}} and {{User Public Transit}} anathema does not strike me as a good idea. -- geni

It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of Wikipedia. Time for a Scouring of the Shire.

On 2/21/06, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Isn't a deletionist someone who prefers to delete articles?

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Tony Sidaway wrote: You obviously don't mind breaking eggs to make an omlet. Geoff

Matt Brown wrote: As would I. Proposal: "Userboxes, consisting of Babel template-like contructs which have one sentance of text describing a user in the third person, are considered plagiarism, copyright infringement, and anyone using them for purposes other than declaring their skills in languages, for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia, will have the 'userbox' deleted, their fingernails pulled out, and their account blocked. Signed this merry day the 22nd of February, in the year of our Lord 2006, His Royal Jimboliness, Jimbo Wales" </parody> -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

"geni" &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote in message news:f80608430602211428u11e0b281wfefb141ac1586adc@mail.gmail.com... I don't know about the latter, but I hope they'll let me substitute the former before they nuke it, just in case it might be useful for anyone to know I'm an adoptive father...or is there another category this particular box might be better suited to? -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Is this also a part of Jimbo's work? Someone was blocked for 24-hours for keeping their userboxes on ther userpage. Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKelly_Martin&diff… --- Guy Chapman &lt;guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net&gt; wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:34:04 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Oh, one more thing: the fact that Kelly found it necessary to take that action shows just how poisonous the whole issue is. Right to wrong (and I make no judgment on that) the simple fact that the exchange took place is an indictment of the corrosive nature of the problem. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:48:59 -0800 (PST), you wrote: You might want to rephrase that in more neutral terms. Some if us are admins. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA stated for the record: Your statement of why he was blocked is incorrect, as anyone actually reading the diff can see. - -- Sean Barrett | Karaoke bars combine two of the nation's sean(a)epoptic.org | greatest evils: people who shouldn't | drink with people who shouldn't sing.

On 2/19/06, Kelly Martin &lt;kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 1 user page is not wikipedia. Incerdentaly you missed his use of [[Image:CA-NDP-2004-Logo.png]]. -- geni